Item Q31
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
e_ = I &VI s i c, bLa—
C
q I ►-i I I q heaYivU�r
see p9.3+ 4J
ORDINANCE - 2014
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CREATING POLICY 202.8.6 TO ALLOW
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS BY
PUBLIC ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL) WHICH
INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF ORGANIC MATERIAL BY VACUUM
DREDGE FROM ARTIFICIAL CANALS CHARACTERIZED AS
HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE 2013
MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO
DEPTHS GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET MEAN LOW WATER;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF
STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS 2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008); and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) was completed on
September 20, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP to: 1) develop a basic conceptual framework for canal
restoration and management that is comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing
wastewater and stormwater master plans, and 2) identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration
projects which can be implemented by the County and other WQPP participants over the next
several years; and
WHEREAS, canals with poor water quality have the potential to cause significant harm to near
shore marine waters upon which the community depends; and
WHEREAS, within the CMMP, approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked;
171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair classification, and 131
received a Poor classification; and
Ord. No. -2014
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHEREAS, since the canals discharge directly into near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in
the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on-
going canal water quality impairment is of utmost importance; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 26 h day of August, 2014, the Monroe
County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 270' day of August, 2014, the Monroe
County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the proposed
amendment and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17` l day of September, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing, considered the staff report, and
provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state
law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, and adopted
Resolution Number _ - 2014 on to transmit the comprehensive plan text
amendment to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section
163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1) the ordinance is
consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
Concern; 2) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan; and 3) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the
Monroe County Code; and
WHEREAS, on , the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The ORC report
states ; and
WHEREAS, as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Sectionl. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows:
(Deletions are str-iekea thr-o and additions are underlined.)
Objective 202.8
By januafy 4, 199; Monroe County shall adopt maintain Land Development Regulations
which implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources
improving water quality and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge
and fill activities.
Ord. No. -2014
Page 2 of 5
Policy 202.8.1
Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the
permitting of dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent
regulations adopted by Monroe County shall be maintained.
Policy 202.8.2
No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
Policy 202.8.3
No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
characterized by hardbottom communities, except for maintenance in public navigation
channels.
Policy 202.8.4
In order to facilitate establishment and prevent degradation of bottom vegetation, maintenance
dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean
low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe
Harbor.
Policy 202.8.5
All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland
sites where drainage can be contained on -site.
Policy 202.8.6
Due to the physical structure, depth, and orientation of the canals water quality problems have
been caused which cannot be improved with wastewater treatment and stormwater
management practices alone. To implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management
Master Plan and improve water quality in manmade canals the County is developing_ pilot
projects to improve tidal flushing and remove accumulated nutrients and decomposing organic
material. Canal restoration projects, developed to determine the effectiveness of water quality
strategies by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program
which are performed or funded by public entities (County, State or Federal) for organic
material removal by vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair
water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan are exempt
from the provisions in Policy 202.8.4.
Upon determination of the pilot projects' effectiveness and an amendment to this Policy, the
exemption to the provisions in Policy 202.8.4 may be expanded beyond public entities
(County, State, or Federal) for organic material removal by vacuum dredge from artificial
canals characterized as having Door or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal
Management Master Plan. The organic material removal shall be allowed to depths greater
than minus six (-6) feet mean low water, if permitted by Florida Department of Environmental
Protection or the Water Management District and the Army Corp of Engineers"and Monroe
County, after a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners for the development
approvalNto assure long term water quality is protected ---
Ord. No. -2014
Page 3 of 5
J
I Prior to the expansion of the canal restoration project pursuant to this policy, water quality
2 monitoring of the two (2) organic material removal pilot projects shall take place for a
3 minimum of a 2 year period. After 2 years from the organic material removal by vacuum
4 dredge from the 2 pilot project canals the County shall request a water quality report from the
5 Water Quality Steering Committee to determine the pilot projects' effectiveness and prior to
6 proposing additional comprehensive plan amendments to allow additional canal restoration
7 projects, beyond the two (2) pilot projects, to perform organic material removal by vacuum
8 dredge to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water.
9
10 Policy 202.8- 6.7
11 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill
12 regulations. All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated.
13
14
15 Policy 202.8.7.8
16 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and
17 equitable penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these
18 violations shall be set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects.
19
20 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
21 provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
22 such validity.
23
24 Section 3. Remal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
25 conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
26
27 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Planning Department to
28 the Florida State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes.
29
30 Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
31 Secretary of State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida
32 State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in
33 compliance, and if challenged until such challenge is resolved pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S.
34
35 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
36 at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2014.
37
38 Mayor Sylvia Murphy
39 Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage
40 Commissioner Heather Carruthers
41 Commissioner George Neugent
42 Commissioner David Rice
43
44
45
46 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
47
Ord. No. -2014
Page 4 of 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
:•
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
Ord. No. -2014
Page 5 of 5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Mike Roberts 289-2502
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider a resolution transmitting to the State Land
Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending the Monroe
County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by creating Policy 202.8.6 to allow the implementation of canal restoration
pilot projects by public entities (County, State or Federal) which include the removal of organic material by
vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013 Monroe
County Canal Management Master Plan to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water. (Legislative
Proceeding)
ITEM BACKGROUND: Monroe County in association with State and Federal Agencies has been working
together to develop a management process for addressing the restoration of the canals in the Florida Keys,
including:
Implementation of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe
County Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001); and
Completing the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment project, providing an
inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential technologies (MACTEC 2003); and
Development and implementation of a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan.
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) Water
Quality Steering Committee initiated work on Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP):
• Develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is comparable to the
frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater master plans; and
• Identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented by the County
and other Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) participants over the next several years.
In 2013, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc, completed the Monroe County Canal Management Master
Plan (CMMP) for Monroe County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the FKNMS WQPP Steering
Committee and the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Committee. One of the recommended management
strategies included in the CMMP is the removal of accumulated organic material from some of the canals that
exhibit fair to poor water quality. Organic removal consists of removing (dredging) the decomposed weed wrack
material present at the bottom of a canal.
Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance
dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic
communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
also limits maintenance dredging to a depth of minus six (-6) feet mean low water. This amendment is being
proposed to evaluate the technologies recommended in the CCMP, including the removal of organic material
from deep canals, as the organic material on the canal bottom consumes large amounts of dissolved oxygen and
depletes the viability of a canal's ecosystem as well as the adjacent near shore waters.
If the BOCC votes to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency,
the State Land Planning Agency will then review the proposed amendment and issue an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, addressing any issues with internal consistency, data and
analysis, or consistency with the statutes or the Principles for Guiding Development. Upon receipt of the ORC
report, the BOCC will have up to 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not
adopt the amendments.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: NIA
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes X No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: NA
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty,�G OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. - 2014
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE
COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY
202.8.6 TO ALLOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL
RESTORATION PROJECTS BY PUBLIC ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE
OR FEDERAL) WHICH INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF ORGANIC
MATERIAL BY VACUUM DREDGE FROM ARTIFICIAL CANALS
CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY
WITHIN THE 2013 MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT
MASTER PLAN TO DEPTHS GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET
MEAN LOW WATER.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public
hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal pursuant to the State Coordinated Review
Process in Sec. 1.63.3184(4), F.S., to the State Land Planning Agency for objections,
recommendations and comments, and to the other Reviewing Agencies as defined in Sec.
163.3184(1)(c), F.S., for review and comment on a proposed amendment to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board
of County Commissioners support the transmittal of the requested text amendment;
NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance for review of the
proposed text amendment.
P. 1 of 2
Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required
transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in
accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes.
Section 3. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the Director of Planning.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of September, 2014.
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IM
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Am Heavilin, Clerk MONROE OUNT ORNEY
y APPP A TO- OR10
Date: i
Deputy Clerk
P.2of2
I -a� `, "
2
3
4
6
7 ORDINANCE - 2014
8
9
10 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
11 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
12 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CREATING POLICY 202.8.6 TO ALLOW
13 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS BY
14 PUBLIC ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL) WHICH
15 INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF ORGANIC MATERIAL BY VACUUM
16 DREDGE FROM ARTIFICIAL CANALS CHARACTERIZED AS
17 HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE 2013
18 MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO
19 DEPTHS GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET MEAN LOW WATER;
20 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
21 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
22 THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF
23 STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
24 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
25
26
27 WHEREAS, water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S.
28 Environmental Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
29 (FKNMS 2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008); and
30
31 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) was completed on
32 September 20, 2013; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
35 initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP to: 1) develop a basic conceptual framework for canal
36 restoration and management that is comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing
37 wastewater and stormwater master plans, and 2) identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration
38 projects which can be implemented by the County and other WQPP participants over the next
39 several years; and
40
41 WHEREAS, canals with poor water quality have the potential to cause significant harm to near
42 shore marine waters upon which the community depends; and
43
44 WHEREAS, within the CMMP, approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked;
45 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair classification, and 131
46 received a Poor classification; and
47
Ord. No. -2014
Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
WHEREAS, since the canals discharge directly into near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in
the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on-
going canal water quality impairment is of utmost importance; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 261h day of August, 2014, the Monroe
County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 271h day of August, 2014, the Monroe
County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the proposed
amendment and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 17th day of September , the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing, considered the staff report, and
provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state
law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, and adopted
Resolution Number _ - 2014 on to transmit the comprehensive plan text
amendment to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section
163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law: 1) the ordinance is
consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
Concern; 2) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan; and 3) the ordinance is consistent with the provisions and intent of the
Monroe County Code; and
WHEREAS, on the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The ORC report
states , and
WHEREAS, as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Sectionl. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows:
(Deletions are str-i .r th--eu h and additions are underlined.)
Objective 202.8
By januar-y 4, 19 Monroe County shall adopt maintain Land Development Regulations
which implement county policies preventing the continued loss of benthic resources,
improving water quality and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge
and fill activities.
Ord. No. -2014
Page 2 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Policy 202.8.1
Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the
permitting of dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent
regulations adopted by Monroe County shall be maintained.
Policy 202.8.2
No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
Policy 202.8.3
No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
characterized by hardbottom communities, except for maintenance in public navigation
channels.
Policy 202.8.4
In order to facilitate establishment and prevent degradation of bottom vegetation, maintenance
dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean
low water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe
Harbor.
Policy 202.8.5
All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland
sites where drainage can be contained on -site.
Policy 202.8.6
Due to the physical structure, depth, and orientation of the canals, water quality problems have
been caused which cannot be improved with wastewater treatment and stormwater
management practices alone. To implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management
Master Plan and improve water duality in manmade canals, the County is developing_ pilot
projects to improve tidal flushing and remove accumulated nutrients and decomposing organic
material. Canal restoration projects, developed to determine the effectiveness of water quality
strategies by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program
which are performed or funded by public entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic
material removal by vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair
water quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan are exempt
from the provisions in Policy 202.8.4. Upon determination of the pilot projects' effectiveness
and an amendment to this Policy, the exemption to the provisions in Policy 202.8.4 may
expanded beyond public entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic material removal by
vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within
the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan. The organic material removal shall
be allowed to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low water, if permitted by Florida
Department of Environmental Protection or the Water Management District and the ArmX
Corp of Engineers to assure _longterm water quality is protected.
Policy 202.8-.6.7
No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill
regulations. All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated.
Ord. No. -2014
Page 3 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Policy 202.5-.7.8
Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and
equitable penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these
violations shall be set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects.
Section 2. Severability. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by
such validity.
Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Planning Department to
the Florida State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes.
Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
Secretary of State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida
State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in
compliance, and if challenged until such challenge is resolved pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2014.
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Mayor Sylvia Murphy
(SEAL) MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk P, Pne wFtrns Ta aRM
Deputy Clerk
Ord. No. -2014
Page 4 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
a�
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Division Director
From: Michael Roberts, Sr. Administrator/Environmental Resources
Date: August 28, 2014
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CREATING POLICY 202.8.6 TO ALLOW THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CANAL RESTORATION PROJECTS BY PUBLIC
ENTITIES (COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL) WHICH INCLUDE THE REMOVAL
OF ORGANIC MATERIAL BY VACUUM DREDGE FROM ARTIFICIAL CANALS
CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING POOR OR FAIR WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE
2013 MONROE COUNTY CANAL MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO DEPTHS
GREATER THAN MINUS SIX (-6) FEET MEAN LOW WATER; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Meeting: September 17, 2014
I REQUEST
Create Policy 202.8.6 to facilitate canal demonstration projects in order to implement the 2013
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan and improve the water quality in the canal systems
of the Florida Keys.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Monroe County in association with State and Federal Agencies has been working together to
develop a management process for addressing the restoration of the canals in the Florida Keys,
including:
• Implementation of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000)
and Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001); and
• Completing the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment project,
providing an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential technologies
(MACTEC 2003); and
• Development and implementation of a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan.
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)
Water Quality Steering Committee initiated work on Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP):
• Develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is
comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater
master plans; and
• Identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented by
the County and other Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) participants over the next
several years.
In 2013, AMEC Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc, completed the Monroe County Canal
Management Master Plan (CMMP) for Monroe County, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the FKNMS WQPP Steering Committee and the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory Committee.
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP), Sept. 20, 2013
Water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007),
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized in the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic (caused by humans)
pollutant loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of
nonanthropogenic materials such as senescent seagrass leaves and other organic flotsam ("weed
wrack"), leading to elevated levels of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, hydrogen sulfide, and
bacteriological water quality indicators such as fecal coliforms and enterococci.
Kruczynski (1999) provided the following summary of water quality issues related to existing Keys
canals:
• the water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom waters are
oxygen deficient;
• because they usually violate Class III Surface Water Quality Standards, canals were excluded
from the State's previous Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designations;
• canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of nutrients and other
contaminants to other nearshore waters;
• improving flushing of degraded canal systems may improve the water quality within the
canal, but may also result in adding additional nutrients to the adjacent waters; and
• Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit signs of
undesirable nutrient enrichment and eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load and
growth of benthic algae.
I)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The CMMP describes the current situation, as follows:
Canals with poor water quality have the potential to cause significant harm to near shore marine
waters upon which the community depends. Water quality impairments within canals are most often
associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO) as a result of accumulated organic matter or lack of
flushing. However, some evidence indicates that nutrient enrichment from surrounding development
has lead to biological imbalances (e.g., algal blooms) that further exacerbate the problem.
Approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked using a combination of Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) tools and water quality field reconnaissance to develop the best possible
assessment. In total, 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair
classification, and 131 received a Poor classification.
Since the canals discharge directly to near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where
DEP adopted a "zero -degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality
impairment is of utmost importance.
These projects are important to protect the near shore water quality of Monroe County, which has
extensive resources and protected areas including four National Wildlife Refuges and the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Florida Keys Management Areas
-'
E
-----------
Of
20 Bisr4rvn
MIMCD
BM
..% NATIONAL PARP.
I- E—Od. N.U..O Pd&
STATERBCRFATIO?dARFA
1} L—g F,ey Spore Reese bw Am
ggy�a�m hatieoil Pork
}AryYe.iapas Naamfi Pak
STATE 111S'iO= SITE
• •% AN,�T[OaIAL UAP.1fIE SAl1CiVART
L4-'"m r"S'me alhm Sme
lc- Fat Zar6ary TVAW Smae ffnld Sm
6
+•Ke7-l�t�uhrtiteaal\LameSmcwae
'PiATE7tarrrsra
_E8
_.STATEPa
.: NATIONAL UM.DLIFE R=<M
16SmmAenaRSE
6- Cmcodde Iate Nna ] Wadde Refilpe
- NKDes
9 SljATE
LmAAOCt SITE
Reef S" Qe-1-pcA Ssx
& trni S4'kae liema 4anom,l Rd p dl STATE BQTANTCAL SITE
a Kay A'ec, Napoa4 A-udide R.c5k�
16- Ke1+Lopn Haoa di Sm. BW.—a Sue
•^ Z ,.
14 Litxulrrme F*' Sm Bmaw lSae
.. STATE PARK
1&3olm Prmek Caai ReefSmrc Pak
AQUATIC PRESERVE
- .4 Buc w Say Cud SawdAgeixic Pce v
- f 10
•f / •`. atlantic
Florida r °•
''�
11- CSim flawmar Snrc Pak
12:]labia Fleoda Stu.Pal
11..���rroe hn• Aguax Dt.svre
��-Ci+ttpm Bt(hrAq,wcParscre
. - 4
ti' Oman
BM, 19��1-
7
16 -ld
— ----
•.
is
.. h
•---$--
1
LawclktmmcwnbeYey
�
ar>:gp.las
Ker
fies
GM Ke<
c
+_ .
u11—Key `
�. ._.---- -- -�
- -
pelfatasbm
Liale Ifock h�.
,tcrm.,rarrrrrrod.naraaurm.a,
Babies FAMb
Sock him d
st Pm V�y
Bon Chka Kn,
SaEulcaf Fn•
KILUAIETERS
�t
MILE$
o C o 16
3
The benthic resources of the Florida Keys include over 1 million acres of seagrass and the only
living coral reef in the continental United States (the 3xd largest living coral barrier reef in the world).
Existing Comprehensive Plan Policies
One of the management strategies included in the CMMP is the removal of accumulated organic
material from some of the canals that exhibit fair to poor water quality. Currently, the Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan prohibits new dredging and does not allow maintenance dredging
within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or characterized by hardbottom communities (e.g. benthic
communities) except for maintenance in public navigation channels. The Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan also limits maintenance dredging to minus six (-6) feet mean low water.
Policy 202.8.2 No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
Policy 202.8.3 No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
characterized by hardbottom communities except for maintenance in public navigation channels.
Policy 203.2.3 Effective upon plan adoption, Monroe County shall:
1. Prohibit new dredging in the Florida Keys; and
2. Prohibit maintenance dredging within areas vegetated with seagrass beds except for maintenance
dredging in public navigation channels.
This amendment is being proposed allow the implementation of canal restoration pilot projects by
public entities (County, State or Federal) which include the removal of organic material by vacuum
dredge from artificial canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan to depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
low water. As detailed in the CMMP, many of these canals were originally excavated deeper than
611, subsequently the accumulated sediments extend well below the -6 MLW limit contained in the
2010 Comprehensive Plan. Evaluating the demonstration project for the removal of organic
material from deep canals is important as the organic material on the canal bottom consumes large
amounts of dissolved oxygen and depletes the viability of a canal's ecosystem as well as the
adjacent near shore waters. The physical removal of accumulated organic sediments can reduce the
consumption of oxygen and improve water quality.
On August 26, 2014, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
amendment and recommended approval to the Monroe County Planning Commission.
On August 27, 2014, the Monroe County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment
and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners, with a specific amendment to
limit the organic material removal by vacuum dredge and the exemption to the dredge depth of
minus six (-6) feet mean low water to projects performed or funded by public entities.
III. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
(Deletions are StriEekeR thFOttg4 and additions are underlined.)
Objective 202.8
, Monroe County shall a&14 maintain Land Development Regulations which
implement county policies_ preventing the continued loss of benthic resources, improve water quality
and controlling pollutant discharges into surface waters from dredge and fill activities.
Policy 202.8.1
Monroe County shall support state and federal policies and regulations concerning the permitting of
dredge and fill activity, except in those instances where more stringent regulations adopted by
Monroe County shall be maintained.
Policy 202.8.2
No new dredging shall be permitted in Monroe County.
Policy 202.8.3
No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or
characterized by hardbottom communities, except for maintenance in public navigation channels.
Policy 202.8.4
In order to facilitate establishment and prevent degradation of bottom vegetation, maintenance
dredging in artificial waterways shall not exceed depths greater than minus six (-6) feet mean low
water. This policy does not apply to the entrance channels into Key West Harbor and Safe Harbor.
Policy 202.8.5
All dredged spoil resulting from maintenance dredging shall be placed on permitted upland sites
where drainage can be contained on -site.
5
I Policy 202.8.6
2 Due to the physical structure, depth, and orientation of the canals, water quality problems have been
3 caused which cannot be im roved with wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices
4 alone. To implement the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan and improve water
5 quality in manmade canals, the County is developing pilot projects to improve tidal flushing and
6 remove accumulated nutrients and decomposing organic material. Canal restoration projects,
7 developed to determine the effectiveness of water quality strategies by the Florida Keys National
8 Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program, which are performed or funded by public
9 entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic material removal by vacuum dredge from artificial
10 canals characterized as having poor or fair water quality within the 2013 _M_onroe County Canal
11 Management Master Plan are exempt from the provisions in Policy 202.8.4. Upon determination of
12 the pilot projects' effectiveness and an amendment to this Policy, the exemption to the provisions in
13 Policy 202.8.4 may be expanded beyond public entities (County, State, or Federal) for organic
14 material removal by vacuum dredge from artificial canals characterized as having -poor or fair water
15 quality within the 2013 Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan. The organic material
16 removal shall be allowed to depths greater than minus six -6 feet mean low water, if permitted b
17 Florida Department of Environmental Protection or the Water Management District and the Army
18 Corp of Engineers to assure long term water quality is protected.
19
20 Policy 202.8-.6.7
21 No "after -the -fact" permits shall be issued that violate Monroe County dredge and fill regulations.
22 All illegal structures and fill shall be removed and damages mitigated.
23
24 Policy 202.8-.7.8
25 Monroe County shall develop a schedule of monetary penalties that provides for fair and equitable
26 penalties for all dredge and fill violations. Penalty revenues obtained from these violations shall be
27 set aside and used specifically for water quality enhancement projects.
28
29 IV. FLORIDA STATUTES AND FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE RELATED TO
30 MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SPOIL
Section 373.403, F.S. Definitions. —When appearing in this part or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted
pursuant thereto, the following terms mean:
(8) "Maintenance" or "repairs" means remedial work of a nature as may affect the safety of any dam,
impoundment, reservoir, or appurtenant work or works, but excludes routine custodial maintenance.
(13) "Dredging" means excavation, by any means, in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s.
373.421(l ). It also means the excavation, or creation, of a water body which is, or is to be, connected to
surface waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1), directly or via an excavated water body or series
of water bodies.
(14) "Filling" means the deposition, by any means, of materials in surface waters or wetlands, as delineated
in s. 373.421(1).
Section 403.061, F.S. Department; powers and duties. —The department shall have the power and the duty
to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and
promulgated by it and, for this purpose, to:
(24)(a) Establish a permit system to provide for spoil site approval, as may be requested and required by
local governmental agencies as defined in 's. 403.1822(3), or mosquito control districts as defined in s.
388.01 I (5), to facilitate these agencies in providing spoil sites for the deposit of spoil from maintenance
6
dredging of navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths, as part of a federal project,
when the agency is acting as sponsor of a contemplated dredge and fill operation involving an established
navigation channel, harbor, turning basin, or harbor berth. A spoil site approval granted to the agency shall
be granted for a period of 10 to 25 years when such site is not inconsistent with an adopted local
governmental comprehensive plan and the requirements of this chapter. The department shall periodically
review each permit to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. Such review shall
be conducted at least once every 10 years.
(b) This subsection applies only to those maintenance dredging operations permitted after July 1, 1980,
where the United States Army Corps of Engineers is the prime dredge and fill agent and the local
governmental agency is acting as sponsor for the operation, and does not require the redesignation of
currently approved spoil sites under such previous operations.
(37) Provide a supplemental permitting process for the issuance of a joint coastal permit pursuant to S.
161.055 or environmental resource permit pursuant to part IV of chapter 373, to a port listed in s. 311.09(1)
(this list includes Key West), for maintenance dredging and the management of dredged materials from
maintenance dredging of all navigation channels, port harbors, turning basins, and harbor berths. Such
permit shall be issued for a period of 5 years and shall be annually extended for an additional year if the
port is in compliance with all permit conditions at the time of extension. The department is authorized to
adopt rules to implement this subsection.
403.803 Definitions. —When used in this act, the term, phrase, or word:
(2) "Canal" is a manmade trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of
its sides normally above water.
(3) "Channel" is a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered entirely by water, with the upper edges
of its sides normally below water.
Section 403.813, F.S. Permits issued at district centers; exceptions.—
(1) A permit is not required under this chapter, chapter 373, chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida, or chapter
25214 or chapter 25270, 1949, Laws of Florida, for activities associated with the following types of
projects; however, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, nothing in this subsection relieves an
applicant from any requirement to obtain permission to use or occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or any water management district in its governmental or proprietary
capacity or from complying with applicable local pollution control programs authorized under this chapter
or other requirements of county and municipal governments:
(f) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, intake and discharge
structures, and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within drainage rights -of -way or
drainage casements which have been recorded in the public records of the county, where the spoil material
is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the
spoil material into the waters of the state, provided that no more dredging is to be performed than is
necessary to restore the canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, and previously dredged
portions of natural water bodies, to original design specifications or configurations, provided that the work
is conducted in compliance with s. 379.243 ] (2)(d), provided that no significant impacts occur to previously
undisturbed natural areas, and provided that control devices for return flow and best management practices
for erosion and sediment control are utilized to prevent bank erosion and scouring and to prevent turbidity,
dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during
maintenance dredging. Further, for maintenance dredging of previously dredged portions of natural water
bodies within recorded drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements, an entity that seeks an exemption
must notify the department or water management district, as applicable, at least 30 days prior to dredging
and provide documentation of original design specifications or configurations where such exist. This
exemption applies to all canals and previously dredged portions of natural water bodies within recorded
drainage rights -of -way or drainage easements constructed prior to April 3, 1970, and to those canals and
I
previously dredged portions of natural water bodies constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all
necessary state permits. This exemption does not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier
separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters. When no previous permit has been issued by the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers
for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure,
such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. The
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund may fix and recover from the permittee an
amount equal to the difference between the fair market value and the actual cost of the maintenance
dredging for material removed during such maintenance dredging. However, no charge shall be exacted by
the state for material removed during such maintenance dredging by a public port authority. The removing
party may subsequently soil such material; however, proceeds from such sale that exceed the costs of
maintenance dredging shall be remitted to the state and deposited in the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
Rule 40E-4.051 Exemptions From Permitting. Exemptions from permitting under Chapters 40E-4, 40E-40
and 40E-400, F.A.C. are set forth below. The performance of activities pursuant to the provisions of the
exemptions set forth in this section does not relieve the person or persons who are using the exemption or
who are constructing or otherwise implementing the activity from meeting the permitting or performance
requirements of other District rules. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Department from taking
appropriate enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., to abate or prohibit any activity otherwise
exempt from permitting pursuant to this section if the Department can demonstrate that the exempted
activity has caused water pollution in violation of Chapter 403, F.S.
(2) Maintenance of Systems.
(a) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing mamnade canals, channels, basins, berths, and
intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained,
upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into
wetlands or other surface waters, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the
canal, channels, basins, berths, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and
provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious
substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply
to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970,
pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or
manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent wetlands or other surface waters. Where
no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the
Department, the District or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance
dredging of the existing manmade canal, channel, basin, berth or intake or discharge structure, such
maintenance dredging shall be Iimited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water.
39 Rule 18-21.003 Definitions.
40 When used in these rules, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
41 (46) "Private channel" means a channel that is dredged or maintained by private entities to provide access to
42 or from such locations as private residences, marinas, yacht clubs, vessel repair facilities, or revenue-
43 generating facilities.
44 (50) "Public channel" means a channel that is constructed or maintained by a public entity such as a federal or
45 state agency, local government, or inland navigation district listed in Chapter 374, F.S., or that is part of a
46 public navigation project, public water management project, or a deepwater port listed in Section
47 403.021(9)(b), F.S.
48 (52) "Public navigation project" means an activity primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized
49 and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), F.S.
50
Rule 62-312.020 Definitions.
(7) "Dredging" is the excavation, by any means, in waters of the state. It is also the excavation (or creation) of
a water body which is, or is to be, connected to any of the waters listed in subsection 62-312.030(2), F.A.C.,
directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies.
Rule 62-312.400 Intent.
(1) Part IV pertains to Outstanding Florida Waters, exclusive of all artificial water bodies, within Monroe
County, as identified in Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C., and is in addition to all other applicable Departmental
rules relating to environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit applications under
Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Artificial water bodies shall be defined as any water body created by dredging,
or excavation, or by the filling in of its boundaries, including canals as defined in subsection 62-312.020(3),
F.A.C., and borrow pits or waters resulting from rock mining activities.
(2)(a) The Environmental Regulation Commission finds that the waters of the Florida Keys and other
Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County are an irreplaceable asset which require special protection.
(b) Further, the Florida Legislature in adopting Section 380.0552, F.S., recognized the value of the Florida
Keys to the State as a whole by designating the Keys an Area of Critical State Concern. This rule
implements Section 403.06](34), F.S., and is intended to provide the most stringent protection for the
applicable waters allowable by law.
(3) Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7), F.S. (1986 Supp.), the specific criteria set forth in this section are
intended to be consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as set forth in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C.
(August 23, 1984), and with the principles set forth in that statute. However, the criteria in this rule does not
apply to all waters within the Florida Keys. These criteria do not apply to artificial waterbodies within the
Florida Keys, as described in subsection 62-312.400(1), F.A.C. In addition, the four foot water depth
restriction for piers which do not provide commercial marine supplies or services and which are designed to
moor between three and nine boats are not applicable within the Outstanding Florida Waters that are within
the boundaries of the City of Key West or within Everglades National Park or areas north of the Park within
Monroe County. Docking facilities in those areas shall instead be subject to the three foot depth restrictions
specified in paragraph 62-312.420(2)(a), F.A.C. However, all other provisions of this part are applicable in
those areas.
Rule 62-312.410 General Criteria.
(1) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312.450, F.A.C.), no
environmental resource permit or grandfathered dredge and fill permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.,
shall be issued for any activity in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County if such activity:
(a) Alone or in combination with other activities damages the viability of a living stony coral community
(Scleraoctinia and Milleporina), soft coral community (Alcynoacea, Gorgonacea and Pennatulacea), macro
marine algae community (Chlorophyta, Phaeophyta and Rhodophyta), sponge bed community (Porifera), or
marine seagrass (Hydrocharitaceae and Cymodoceae) bed community. This prohibition shall not include
algae unattached to the bottom, nor shall it include algae growing landward of the mean high water line or
growing as an epiphyte or periphyte on woody plants. For the purposes of this Part a marine seagrass bed or
marine macroalgae community means an area dominated by the listed biota having an areal extent of at
least 100 square feet. This paragraph does not imply that the Department cannot restrict the impact on
smaller areas for such species based on other Department rules;
(b) Has been initiated or completed without benefit of an environmental resource permit or dredge and fill
permit required by the Department.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the mitigation section of this part (Rule 62-312.450, F.A.C.), no permit shall
be issued for the placement of fill in Outstanding Florida Waters in Monroe County unless expressly
authorized by this rule or unless the Department determines that under applicable rules a permit may be
issued in the following situations:
9
I (a) Filling for projects which have been proposed by a governmental entity, public authority or public or
2 private utility; or
3 (b) Filling for any other projects located within the landward extent of wetlands identified solely by
4 vegetative dominance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Such areas do not include open
5 waters or wetlands identified by vegetative don -finance as described in paragraph 62-340.300(2)(a), F.A.C.,
6 or by the provisions of paragraph 62-340.300(2)(c) or (d), F.A.C.
7
8 Rule 62-312.450 Mitigation.
9 Notwithstanding any of the prohibitions contained in this rule, the Department shall consider mitigation
10 pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(b), F.S., and applicable Department rules to determine whether the project
11 may otherwise be permittable. In any application for mitigation, the applicant shall demonstrate before
12 issuance of any permit for the construction of the intended project that the proposed mitigation will be
13 effective. Mitigation shall not be permitted where it appears after due considerations that construction of the
14 intended project will cause irreplaceable damage to the site.
15
16 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
17 THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
18
19 A. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the following Goals, Objectives and
20 Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
21
22 Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure
23 the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
24
25 GOAL 202; The environmental quality of Monroe County's estuaries, nearshore waters
26 (canals, harbors, bays, lakes and tidal streams,) and associated benthic resources shall be
27 maintained and, where possible, enhanced.
28
29 GOAL 203: The health and integrity of living benthic resources and marine habitat, including
30 mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs and fisheries, shall be protected and, where possible,
31 enhanced.
32
33 Objective 203.2: Monroe County shall protect submerged lands vegetated with seagrasses by
34 implementing regulations which will further reduce direct and indirect disturbances to
35 seagrasses.
36
37 Objective 203.6: Monroe County shall coordinate development and implementation of
38 programs and regulations to protect the living benthic resources of the Florida Keys with
39 other federal, state and local authorities with jurisdiction over marine activities within the
40 Florida Keys.
41
42 GOAL 204: The health and integrity of Monroe County's marine and freshwater wetlands
43 shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced.
44
45
46
10
B. The amendment is not inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the
Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that
local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical
state concern designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida
Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character
of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including:
i. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
ii. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
iii. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
iv. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
V. Transportation facilities;
vi. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
vii. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
properties;
viii. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
ix. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
{j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss.
381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by
central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems.
11
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida
Keys.
(m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of
a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent
with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any
Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida
Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers:
163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve
and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal
effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within
their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units
of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety,
comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and
services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their
jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,
and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,
and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the
plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a
consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans
are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and
strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,
modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not
the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the
comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land
development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive
plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards
for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
163.3177(6)(d)l.e., F.S. - Conserves, appropriately uses, and protects fisheries, wildlife,
wildlife habitat, and marine habitat and restricts activities known to adversely affect the
survival of endangered and threatened wildlife.
163.3177(6)(g)l., F.S. - Maintain, restore, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone
environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values.
163.3177(6)(g)3., F.S. - Protect the orderly and balanced utilization and preservation,
consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone
resources.
VI. PROCESS
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff
recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not
recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. If the amendment is transmitted to the
State Land Planning Agency, it then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections,
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has
180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the
amendment.
VIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
VII. EXHIBITS
i. Monroe County Canal Management Plan (CMMP), Sept. 20, 2013
ii. Monroe County CMMP Phase 1 Summary report, June 21, 2012
13
ltk
Monroe County _
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
Prepared By:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Prepared For:
Monroe County, EPA, the
WOPP Steering Committee and WOPP Canat Restoration Advisory Subcommittee
September 20, 2013
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c'
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................
iv
1.0 Background..................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose of Document.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Review of Stakeholders..........................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Situation and Need..................................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Summary of Historic Efforts...................................................................................................1-4
1.5 Public Benefit and Participation..........................................................................................1-13
2.0 Project Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Overview of Scope..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 What Defines a Canal?..........................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.........................................................................2-2
2.4 CMMP Objectives....................................................................................................................2-2
2.5 Management Goals for Priority Issues.................................................................................2-3
3.0 Updated CMMP Database.........................................................................................................3-1
4.0 Keys -Wide Canal Water Quality Ranking................................................................................4-1
4.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Process for Determining A Water Quality Classification...................................................4-3
4.3 Canal Ranking andNeed for Water Quality Improvement.................................................4-5
4.3.1 Water Quality Summary .................................................................................................4-5
4.3.2 Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet.......................................................................................4-5
4.4 Results......................................................................................................................................4-7
5.0 Best Management Practices for Canal Water Quality Improvement..................................5-1
5.1 Homeowner Stewardship.......................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Restoration Technologies......................................................................................................5-4
5.2.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers................................................................5-5
5.2.2 Organic Removal.............................................................................................................5-6
5.2.3 Canal Backfilling..............................................................................................................5-7
5.2.4 Culvert Installation...........................................................................................................5-7
5.2.5 Circulation Pumping........................................................................................................5-8
5.2.6 Integrated Technology Application...............................................................................5-9
i
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.0 Adaptive Management Process .............................................
6.1 Background...........................................................................
6.2 Evaluation of CMMP Adaptive Management Objectives
6.2.1 Define Programmatic Issues and Goals ...................
6.2.2 Plan and Prioritize........................................................
6.2.3 Implement......................................................................
6.2.4 Monitor...........................................................................
6.2.5 Evaluate.........................................................................
6.2.6 Adjust.............................................................................
7.0 Project Funding Mechanisms .................................................
7.1 Recurring Grant Programs ..................................................
7.2 Grant Application Checklist .................................................
7.3 Information Necessary to Complete Applications ...........
7.4 County and Municipality Funding Sources .......................
7.5 2012 RESTORE Act Funding ............................................
8.0 Future Needs............................................................................
9.0 Literature Cited.........................................................................
TABLES
Table 1 - Residential Canal Attribute Table
Table 2 - Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
Table 3 Residential Canal Water Quality Summaries
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Florida Keys Location Map
Figure 6-1 Adaptive Management Framework
APPENDICES
Appendix A Residential Canal Homeowner Questionnaire
Appendix B Glossary of Canal Attributes Included in CMMP Database
Appendix C Poor Water Quality Ranking Sheets
ATTACHED CD
Google Earth Pro Canal Layer
GIS Shape files
Canal Attribute Table (Excel)
ArcGIS Map File
11
a C, -°
......6-1
......6-1
......6-2
......6-2
......6-3
......6-3
......6-4
......6-4
......6-5
......7-1
......7-1
......7-1
......7-2
......7-3
......7-3
......8-1
......9-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
came .
This comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) Phase 2 was commissioned by
Monroe County, with financial assistance from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), and with approval from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS)
Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP). During development of the CMMP Phase 2, goals
and priority management issues established during the initial Phase 1 CMMP process were
reviewed and updated. In addition, the CMMP Phase 2 provides an expanded framework for
identifying and correcting water quality impairments within the entire Florida Keys canal
network. Approximately five hundred canals were examined and ranked as part of this effort
using a combination of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools and water quality field
reconnaissance to develop the best possible assessment. The CMMP development process
was directed by the WQPP's steering subcommittee known as the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee consisting of federal, state, and local agency members. This CMMP Phase 2
report is intended to provide the reader with a comprehensive overview of the entire CMMP
process, combining results from Phase 1 and Phase 2 into one document.
Canals within the Florida Keys have recently
received considerable attention from regulatory
agencies because many are associated with
poor water quality. C anals with poor water
quality have the potential to cause significant
harm to near shore marine waters upon which
the community depends. Water quality
impairments within canals are most often
associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO) as
a result of accumulated organic matter or lack
of flushing. However, some evidence indicates
that nutrient enrichment from surrounding
development has lead to biological imbalances
(e.g., algal blooms) that further exacerbate the
problem. In addition, other water quality problems
bacteria have also been identified.
including contamination from fecal coliform
In response to the documented water quality issues related to the Keys residential canals, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2008 developed the Florida Keys
Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of addressing both anthropogenic
nutrient loading and diminished DO concentrations within the canals. Through the
implementation of the FKRAD prescribed management activities (Wastewater Management,
Stormwater Management, and the adherence to Regulatory Guidelines), it was expected that
Monroe County would not be required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to
address either the nutrient loading or diminished DO concentrations in the residential canals.
In the 2011 FKRAD update, the DEP acknowledged that due to the varying nature of the
residential canals within Monroe County, the actual improvement in water quality from the
implementation of the three above referenced general management activities is unknown.
Furthermore, the 2011 FKRAD stated that without addressing the poor circulation, weed wrack,
organic sediments, water depth issues, and DO concentrations, the canals will likely not achieve
lll
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
DEP Class III Marine Surface Water DO standards. Since the canals discharge directly to near
shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a" zero -degradation"
policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality impairment is of utmost
importance. It was identified by the WQPP Canal Subcommittee that the first step to address
this problem was to prepare a CMMP to provide an updated water quality assessment of all
residential canals within the Keys, develop a methodology to prioritize need for water quality
improvement, and identify appropriate restoration options.
One of the main objectives of the CMMP was to prioritize the residential canals within Monroe
County related to need for water quality improvements. A process was developed utilizing
water quality assessment data and physical conditions of the canals that influence the ability to
improve the water quality and benefit the public. The canals were classified by water quality
characteristics into "Good", "Fair", and " Poor' categories. Those canals receiving a " Poor'
classification were scored and ranked using specific canal attributes in order to provide a list of
high priority canals which were suitable for consideration of various public works restoration
projects. In total, 171 canals received a Good water quality classification, 180 received a Fair
classification, and 131 received a Poor classification. This included canals in all municipalities.
Canals receiving a P oor classification were considered as potential candidates for certain
restoration technologies. A preliminary technology selection process was developed utilizing
the identified source(s) of water quality impairment and the canal characteristics. This
preliminary technology selection will need to be field verified with an engineering evaluation in
the future in order to develop the most appropriate and cost effective restoration(s) for each
canal system. Restoration technologies reviewed in the CMMP include removal of accumulated
organics, incorporation of weed gates or similar weed barrier structures, addition of culverts,
construction of pumping systems, and backfilling. The physical removal of accumulated organic
sediments can reduce the consumption of oxygen and release of nutrients from deeper water.
Weed gates provide a low-cost method of minimizing the introduction of floating debris that
often accumulates and causes low DO and odor problems within dead end canals. In certain
locations, addition of new culverts can provide a low-cost solution to flushing of dead end
canals, while pumping requires more equipment, but can be implemented as needed to improve
circulation. Backfilling is one method that can be used to eliminate deeper layers of colder
saltier water which tend to be associated with low DO and elevated nutrient concentrations. In
some cases, multiple technologies may be used in combination to improve the ability to achieve
water quality goals.
Public participation is the key to the successful achievement of goals and objectives for water
quality improvement in the canals. I n addition to the implementation of the above discussed
restoration techniques, there are many best management practices (BMPs) that can be easily
implemented both by homeowners and business owners to protect water quality and require
only minimal use of public funds. BMPs vary from careful selection of fertilizers and landscape
plants to proper disposal of fish waste. I n addition to providing various BMPs, the CMMP
encourages public participation by providing homeowners with links to on-line information about
canal restoration efforts.
The CMMP provides an adaptive management process to aid in current and future actions.
Adaptive management is an iterative process where project goals are periodically re-evaluated
so the plans and priorities developed as part of the CMMP are consistent as new information
becomes available. Adaptive management also includes committee -based processes to review
1V
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation elements of the CMMP and make necessary
adjustments. This adaptive process is imperative to the success of the CMMP.
Several cooperative funding programs may be available for projects that could be contemplated
as part of the CMMP and include those from municipalities and agencies such as USEPA, DEP,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and A tmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and The Nature Center (TNC). Program eligibility requirements are
varied, but include use of innovative technologies, assistance with achievement of TMDL goals,
or simply reduction of non -point source pollution within impaired waters. Funding amounts can
range from several thousand dollars to several million. R ESTORE Act funding is another
significant source of funds for projects considered under the CMMP.
While the CMMP provides a comprehensive overview of the water quality conditions in the Keys
canals, this information will require updating over time. New information will become available
on effective technologies that should be incorporated into restoration planning. Implementation
of water quality improvements and protection of the Key's aquatic ecosystems will require the
full cooperation of all stakeholders and coordinated planning efforts.
v
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
ameO
This report was produced as the final deliverable for the Monroe County Water Quality
Protection U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant No. OOD03712. The project
description was to prepare a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
database, update priority management issues and goals for the Keys -wide CMMP, and prepare
Keys -wide canal ranking criteria. The effort was referred to as Phase 2 CMMP. The updates
are based upon the work completed under a Phase 1 CMMP which was initiated under Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Grant # S0607. The final deliverable for the
DEP Grant was submitted on June 21, 2012 entitled `Monroe County CMMP Phase 1 Summary
Report' (AMEC 2012). This Phase 2 C MMP report is intended to provide the reader with a
comprehensive overview of the entire CMMP process, combining results from Phase 1 an d
Phase 2 into one document.
1.2 REVIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) was established by Congress in 1990.
Under its authority, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
manage all waters as well as natural and cultural
resources surrounding the Florida Keys. The
Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program
(WQPP) was mandated by Congress and developed
jointly by EPA, NOAA, the State of Florida, and
Monroe County. In 2012 t he WQPP Steering
Committee convened a Water Quality Canal
Subcommittee to manage and ov ersee the
implementation of canal water quality improvements. The WQPP Steering Committee recently
formalized the Subcommittee which is now known as the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee.
The CMMP was overseen by the WQPP Steering Committee and the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee (members shown in bold) who represent the public interest and
routinely conduct public meetings regarding the various aspects of program implementation:
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• NOAA
• DEP
1-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Florida Keys Environmental Fund
• Monroe County
• Municipalities
• Village of Islamorada
• City of Marathon
• City of Key Colony Beach
• City of Layton
• City of Key West
• A citizen knowledgeable about the WQPP
1.3 SITUATION AND NEED
The Florida Keys (Keys) located in Monroe County, Florida stretches
110 miles from just south of Miami, Florida to Key West, Florida. As
the only tropical archipelago within the continental United States, the
Keys after World War II became a popular destination for tourists and
residents alike. To accommodate the post war demand for seaside
living, Keys developers converted the coastal mangrove wetlands
which dotted the archipelago into waterfront property. Because
residents desired homes adjacent to the water with dock space for
boats and developers needed a source of fill material for construction,
dredged finger canals became an essential characteristic of Keys life.
Today, residential canals are a permanent part of the Keys landscape.
came .
Construction of residential canals in the Keys was initiated in the
mid-20th century, before resource managers fully understood
their impacts on I ocal water quality and the broader coastal
ecosystems. D epending upon how much fill material was
required at the time of development; contractors routinely
dredged the canals to a depth in excess of 20 feet. Most canals
were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal
networks which maximize waterfront property but resulted in little
or not idal flushing. Without adequate tidal flushing, the canals
from their onset accumulated oxygen consuming sediments,
nutrients and organic matter.
1-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
From 1950 to 1970, studies of residential canals that focused
on water quality were conducted throughout Florida. These
studies determined that canal construction created significant
water quality and biological degradation within both the canals
and the coastal halo. In addition to the findings published in
the aforementioned studies, residents of the Keys have
witnessed as teady deterioration of the water quality within
their canals. A few signs of the water quality degradation
reported by the residents included the darkening color of the
water, objectionable odors, floating sludge, and periodic fish
kills. Water quality degradation not only presents aesthetic
and ecological problems, but a publ is health threat as well.
Previous studies concluded that degraded canal water results
in not only the deterioration of the environmental quality of
receiving waters but also impacts the adjacent benthic
communities including seagrass and coral reefs (Lapointe and
Clark 1992; Lapointe et al. 1994; Lapointe and Matzie, 1992).
Subsequent studies attributed the decline in canal water
quality in Monroe County specifically to the anthropogenic
nutrient loading from both on -site waste water disposal and
storm water run-off.
came .
In response to the documented water quality issues related to the Florida Keys residential
canals, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2008 developed the
Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Document (FKRAD) for the purpose of addressing both
anthropogenic nutrient loading and diminished dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations within the
canals. Through the implementation of the FKRAD prescribed management activities
(Wastewater Management, Stormwater Management, and t he adherence to Regulatory
Guidelines), it was expected that Monroe County would not be required to establish Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address either the nutrient loading or diminished DO
concentrations in the residential canals.
In the 2011 FKRAD update, the FDEP acknowledged that due to the varying nature of the
residential canals within Monroe County, the actual improvement in water quality from the
implementation of the three above referenced general management activities is unknown.
Furthermore, the 2011 FKRAD stated that without addressing the poor circulation, weed wrack,
organic sediments and water depth issues, DO concentrations in the residential Keys canal will
likely not achieve Class III Marine Surface Water DO standards. Since the canals discharge
directly to near shore Outstanding Florida Waters in the FKNMS, where DEP adopted a "zero -
degradation" policy for marine waters, addressing on -going canal water quality impairment is of
utmost importance. It was identified by the WQPP Canal Subcommittee that the first step to
address this problem was to prepare a Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) to provide an
updated water quality assessment of all residential canals within the Keys, develop a
methodology to prioritize need f or water quality improvement, and identify appropriate
restoration options.
1-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.4 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC EFFORTS
In order to effectively understand the water quality issues related to the residential canals within
Monroe County, the unique history and characteristics of the canals must be understood and
addressed. This section summarizes relevant guidance documents and peer reviewed
publications on the canal systems and near shore waters of the Florida Keys as they pertain to
water quality. The following annotated bibliography summarizes the documented issues related
to water quality within the project area, as well as the recommended or ongoing course of
actions taken on behalf of the interested parties to remediate the impaired conditions:
• In Kruczynski's 1999 report titled "Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources,
Effects and Solutions" the author provided the following background information on a
number of water quality issues and potential management actions in the canals and near
shore waters of the Keys:
o Water quality problems due to on -site sewage disposal practices and stormwater
runoff have been documented in residential canals. Water quality parameters
that are degraded include nutrient enrichment, fecal coliform contamination, and
biochemical oxygen demand.
o Long, dead-end canal systems, deep canals of any length, and poorly flushed
basins accumulate weed wrack and other particulate matter.
o The water column of many canals over six feet
deep is stratified and bottom waters are oxygen
deficient. Because they usually violate Class III
Surface Water Quality Standards, canals were
excluded from Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFW) designation.
o Artificial aeration of canals does not eliminate
the sources of excessive nutrients in canal
waters but may result in better mixing which
may facilitate nitrogen cycling.
o Improving flushing of degraded canal systems
may improve the water quality within the canal,
but may also result in adding additional
nutrients to the adjacent waters.
o Canal systems and bas ins with poor water
quality are a potential source of nutrients and
other contaminants to other near shore waters.
o Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit
signs of eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load and growth of benthic
algae.
1-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
o Vessel generated turbidity (re -suspended sediments) is a growing concern in
many areas with high boat traffic including canals and open waters.
o There are no definitive studies on the geographic extent of the impact of
human -caused nutrient enrichment. Scientists agree that canal and other near
shore waters are affected by human -derived nutrients from sewage. Improved
sewage treatment practices are needed to improve canal and other near shore
waters. Impacts further from shore that may be due to human -derived nutrients
may be reduced or eliminated by cleaning up near shore waters.
Kruczynski (1999) also provided
an overview of an earlier project
that was conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
to evaluate water quality
conditions in finger fill canals
located in Florida and North
Carolina (EPA 1975). The 1975
study found that, during the rainy
season, canals with poor flushing
characteristics often exhibited
pronounced density stratification,
with a deep layer of high -salinity
water essentially trapped beneath
an upper, lower -salinity layer.
The resulting stagnation of the
lower portion of the water column
was found to encourage oxygen
depletion and the release of nutrients from canal -bottom sediments.
that canals greater than four to five feet deep regularly experienced
water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (<4 mg/1).
The study reported
violations of State
In 1999 Monroe County evaluated a group of stormwater-related water quality problem
areas, which were summarized by CDM (2001) as part of the Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan. CDM (2001) identified the following eight locations as high -
priority stormwater management problem areas, based on i nformation from earlier
surveys and site visits by trained personnel:
o Campbell's Marina, Key Largo
o Marathon Marina, Vaca Key
o Boot Key Harbor drainage, Vaca Key
o Alex's Junkyard, Stock Island
o Oceanside Marina, Stock Island
o Safe Harbor Area, Stock Island
1-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
o Garrison Bight Marina, Key West, and
o Key West Bight, Key West.
Ten medium -priority stormwater management problem areas and ten "other' problem
areas were also identified in the CDM (2001) report.
CH2MHILL (2000) provided an addi tional summary of known water -quality problem
areas, focusing on wastewater -related sources and bas ed on information from three
earlier reports: a 1992 Phase I Report of the FKNMS Water Quality Protection Plan, a
modified list of problem areas proposed by the South Florida Water Management District
in 1996, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed between Monroe
County and DEP in 1997 regarding future wastewater permitting practices and the
elimination of existing cesspits. The CH2MHILL (2000) report identified and prioritized a
total of 45 hi gh priority water quality "hot spots", or problem areas that would be
addressed in the near future by the installation of central community wastewater
systems as part of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan.
As one component of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, which was funded by
US Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, URS
(2001) developed a Canal Impact Assessment Module (CIAM) which provides a
comparative tool for evaluating the relative impacts of wastewater and stormwater
discharges into tidally -flushed dead-end canals, and for assessing the relative impacts of
wastewater and s tormwater management decisions on nut rient concentrations in
representative canals. (Pathogens and fecal coliforms were not included in the module,
due to a lack of relevant data.) The CIAM was part of a larger carrying capacity analysis
model (CCAM) that was developed to assist state and local jurisdictions to determine the
ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem to withstand the potential impacts of additional land
development activities.
The CIAM is based on a s teady-
state, spreadsheet -based tidal
flushing algorithm that estimates
pollutant concentrations in canals
based on pol lutant loads from
stormwater and wastewater
discharges and t idal fluxes from
near shore waters. To develop the
algorithm, data acquisition efforts
targeted previous canal water
quality studies, near shore water
quality data, and the magnitude of
tidal fluctuations. The module was
applied to ten canal systems that
were selected based on t he
availability of water quality data and the presence of representative sources of
wastewater and s tormwater pollutant loadings, including residential and commercial
1-6
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
sources. Only canals with one opening were considered; plugged canals (with no
openings) and canals with multiple openings were not evaluated.
The URS (2001) report provides the following overview of the strengths and limitations of
the assessment module:
"The CIAM is set up as a canal -specific spreadsheet model. It assumes a long-
term steady-state influx of pollutant loads and volumes. It does not include or
account for a number of variables that may have a significant impact on observed
canal water quality. Some of these potential factors include:
• Sea level rise;
• Water column stratification;
• Wind effects;
• Thermal gradients;
• Surge tides associated with tropical storms or hurricanes;
• Interactions between the benthic/sediment zone and the active water
column;
• Nutrient uptake/release by marine plants
• Washed in seagrasses and similar sources;
• Direct input of water volumes and pollutant loads attributable to
precipitation or atmospheric dryfall deposition;
• Water volume losses attributable to evaporation or transpiration; and
• Direct pollutant inputs related to marine vessel discharges and illicit
discharges.
Based on the wastewater and stormwater management systems that existed at the time
the CIAM was constructed, the module estimated that wastewater represented about
80% of the nutrient (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus) load, 50% of the BOD load,
and 25% of the TSS load entering the canal systems it evaluated. In terms of hydrologic
inputs, wastewater represented about 25% with the remainder coming from stormwater.
Under a future "Smart Growth" scenario that was also evaluated using the CIAM tool,
much of the onsite wastewater sources were assumed to be eliminated and the bulk of
the pollutant loads to the canals became stormwater based. U nder this scenario the
wastewater portion of projected nutrient load fell to about 10% of the total, while BOD,
TSS, and hydrologic loads were reduced to 5% or less of the total. On average, nutrient
concentrations were approximately 50% lower in the Smart Growth scenario, BOD
concentrations were reduced by about a quarter, and TSS concentrations showed a
minor reduction (6%).
Loads discharged from the canals to near shore waters were also projected to be
reduced in the Smart Growth scenario, but to a lesser extent. Exported nutrient loads
were projected to fall by about 45%, BOD by about 20%, and TSS less than 5%. For all
canals, model results predicted that pollutant concentrations would tend to be highest in
their interior sections, located farthest from the canal mouth.
• Because of the unprecedented (for Florida) scope of the Carrying Capacity project, the
project's co-sponsors requested the National Research Council (NRC) to provide a
critical review of several of the project's draft work products. The NRC (2002) committee
1-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
report did not address the canal assessment module. I t did, however, provide the
following broad overview of the Carrying Capacity project:
"The contractors did an admirable job of working with the data available.
Time and money constraints aside, however, the task was perhaps too ambitious
an undertaking for the data and level of knowledge that currently exist for Florida
Keys ecosystems. In its present stage of development, the CCAM is not ready to
`determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem ... to withstand all impacts
of additional land development activities' as mandated by Florida Administration
Commission Rule 28.20-100. Significant improvement of the CCAM is required
in several key aspects if it is to be useful as an impact assessment tool.
Endeavors such as the CCAM tend to obscure significant scientific uncertainty
and project an unrealistic understanding of complicated environmental issues.
What is needed and what the committee would like to express in this review, are
expert opinion, common sense, and stakeholder consensus. The CCAM has
important information to bring to the table, particularly where its modules have
been based upon good and reliable scientific data. In the end, however, the
decision to be made will be social not scientific. Once management has been
implemented, science can make further progress toward understanding the
natural system through modeling endeavors such as this one."
Regarding canal -related issues, the report noted that "canal water quality is an important
issue for near -shore environments and is a major public concern" (NRC 2002). It also
noted that "little detailed information is available concerning the depth and cross-section
characteristics of canals, their flushing characteristics, or ambient water quality data."
While these comments do not provide guidance on technical aspects of the CIAM, they
do provide a valuable viewpoint on the importance of stakeholder consensus and social
decision -making in the overall resource management process.
The importance of stakeholder consensus and decision -making has been emphasized
further by the development and implementation of County -wide master plans for the
management of wastewater and stormwater discharges in the Keys. Documents
prepared by CH2MHILL (2000) and CDM (2001) have summarized these plans, which
are now being implemented in a num ber of the highest -priority water quality problem
areas. As noted by URS (2001), the pollutant load reductions that will be achieved by
the continued implementation of these plans are projected to lead to substantial water
quality improvements in the existing canal systems.
1-8
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came
The FKNMS (FKNMS 2007) published as even -step canal management strategy,
focused on reducing water quality problems in canals and reducing nutrient loading to
other surface waters from canal systems, as
plan. The strategy notes
that while many water
quality problems in canals
are linked to local
stormwater and
wastewater discharges,
others can be due to a
canal's structure and
orientation. T hese
physical features can lead
to low flushing and the
buildup of weed wrack,
which consumes oxygen
and releases nutrients as
part of its overall sanctuary management
it decays. T he FKNMS L
(2007) strategy proposes
to inventory and
characterize canals and investigate technologies to determine whether it would be
worthwhile to implement corrective actions, such as weed gates and aeration systems,
to improve water quality. It notes that plans for implementing improvements in canal
circulation and flushing would have to be dev eloped in coordination with plans for
dealing with stormwater and wastewater pollution from cesspits and septic tanks.
More recently, DEP has funded the development of Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans for
the surface waters of the Keys, as an alternative to the development of TMDLs. RA plans
were developed for the Upper, Middle and Lower Keys by CDM and URS (2008a, b, c).
The RA plans note that "halo zone" waters surround the Keys out to 500 meters offshore,
and "near shore" waters extend from 500 meters out to 12,100 meters offshore. These
are classified as Class III waters (whose beneficial uses include recreation and the
propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population of fish and wildlife)
and Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). The primary pollutants of concern for these
waters are nutrients (nitrogen and phos phorus), and F lorida water quality standards
require that "in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a water body be altered so as to
cause an imbalance of natural populations of flora and fauna." T he reports note that,
because far -field sources dominate the nutrient concentrations in near shore waters, the
recommended water quality target in the near shore area is defined to be an insignificant
increase in nutrient concentrations above natural background levels at 500 meters from
shore. "Insignificant' in this case is defined as less than 10 pg/I for total nitrogen and less
than 2 pg/I for total phosphorus, and background is defined as the Halo Zone condition in
the absence of anthropogenic loads. Another recommended water quality target is that the
near shore ambient nutrient concentrations at 500 meters should average less than the
ambient concentrations measured at the time of OFW designation. These water quality
goals are relevant to the canal management process because canal management efforts
are expected to support their achievement.
1-9
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
The Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update of 2011 (CDM 2011)
outlined extensive waste water and s torm water restoration activities to address the
nutrient impairments. However, it states that DEP recognizes that even after the
restoration and management activities detailed in the RAD are completed, water quality in
many canals will likely not achieve Class III marine standards, as required by regulation.
The varying nature of canals with poor water circulation, weed wrack, organic sediments,
and/or water depth was the cited reasons.
The Little Venice neighborhood on Marathon Key was selected in the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan as the first phase of wastewater improvements for the
Marathon area because of its high development density, inadequate cesspool and septic
systems, and known water quality problems in the canals. Briceno and Boyer (2009)
conducted the Little Venice water quality monitoring project, with funding support from
EPA and FDEP, to detect changes in water quality as a function of the remediation
activities. The project included two phases. Phase 1was executed prior to remediation,
from May 2001 to December 2003. Phase 2 began in June 2005, when construction of
the wastewater collection system was mostly completed, and lasted until to May 2009.
A "Before —After Control -Impact" (BACI) experimental design was used to assess
changes due t o remediation. Observations and sampling were performed in three
remedied canals (112th St., 100th St. and, 97th St. canals), in one control (reference)
canal lacking remedial actions (91st St. canal) and a near shore site for comparison
purposes (Briceno and Boyer 2009).
Water samples were collected weekly for bacteriological analysis including enumeration
of fecal coliforms (until November 2007) and enterococci. Weekly field parameters
measured at both the surface and bottom of the water column at each station included:
salinity, temperature, and DO. Weekly water samples from each station were analyzed
for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and chlorophyll a (CHLA). Additionally,
monthly grab samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, soluble reactive
phosphate, silicate, and total organic carbon (Briceno and Boyer 2009).
Non -parametric Mann -Whitney tests indicated statistically significant (p<0.05) declines in
TN as a result of the wastewater treatment system while TP, DO (surface and bottom)
and CHLA concentrations increased in almost all sites. These changes were partially
related to region wide variability as well as local condition and/or remediation actions. At
the time of this study, State of Florida Rule 62-302.530, for Class III marine waters,
specifies that DO "shall never be less than 4.0 mg/1". Prior to remediation, this threshold
was exceeded in 57% and 67% of sampling events for surface and bottom water
samples respectively. For Phase 2, the benchmark was exceeded 45% and 54% for
surface and bottom DO, respectively. In spite of this improvement, low DO
concentrations continue to be an issue of concern in Little Venice waters (Briceno and
Boyer 2009).
1-10
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
The Florida impaired water rule at the time of the Little Venice study stated that an
estuary is impaired if the annual mean CHLA concentration is greater than 11 pg/l.
Using this as a benchmark, annual mean CHLA concentrations for all canals and the
offshore site were well below State standards during both Phase 1 (1.33 pg/1) and Phase
2 (2.14 pg/1). The overall increase during Phase 2 was statistically significant (Briceno
and Boyer 2009), presumably due to regional factors unrelated to the remediation effort.
The Florida State standard for single counts of fecal coliforms in Class III -Marine waters
is 800 CFU per 100 ml; the EPA recommended standard for Enterococci is 104 CFU per
100 ml. During Phase 1, 0.4% of fecal coliform observations exceeded the State
standard, and 6% of Enterococci counts exceeded the recommended EPA level. Fecal
coliform analyses in Phase 2 indicated that 1 % of observations exceeded the FL State
standard. After 4 years into remediation (Phase 2), 4% of Enterococci counts exceeded
the recommended EPA level, suggesting a slight improvement in water quality (Briceno
and Boyer 2009).
Bacterial count distribution along the year corresponded to both climatic conditions and
site location. Higher counts occurred in the rainy season. In addition, the heads of the
canals, having longer residence times, had significantly greater bacterial numbers than
did the mouths. S tations in worse condition in Phase 1 ex perienced greater
improvements following remediation, a result emphasized by Briceno and Boyer (2009)
as having potentially important implications for other canal remediation projects.
Overall, Briceno and Boyer (2009) interpreted the water quality monitoring results as
providing encouraging signs of improvement in water quality in Little Venice as an
outcome of remedial actions advocated by the Monroe County, the EPA, the DEP and
the community of Marathon.
Since the completion of the first phase of the
waste water improvements at the Little Venice
neighborhood, Monroe County and as sociated
municipalities have undertaken an extensive
effort to provide wastewater treatment throughout
the entire Keys. A summary of the percent
connected by wastewater service area is
provided below. Currently the average percent
connected within the County is approximately 77
percent. It is anticipated that implementation of
the wastewater treatment plans will be complete
by 2015. Efforts to install stormwater
management systems are underway and w ill
increase in numbers as new projects are
completed and as additional funding becoming
available.
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
me
Service Area
EDUs
Connected
Percent
Connected
Ocean Reef (NKLUC)
11884
1,884
100%
Key Largo (KLWTD)
14,572
11,923
82%
Islarnorada
8,483
1,055
12%
Layton (FKAA)
351
351
100%
Duck Key / Conch Key (FKAA)
1,454
1,167
80%
Key Colony Beach
1,502
1,502
100%
City of Marathon
5,812
4,607
79%
Cudjoe (FKAA)
8,600
0%
Big Coppitt (FKAA)
1,726
1,417
82%
Bay Point (FKAA)
437
420
96%
Stock Island
2,750
2,650
96%
Key West
24,075
24,075
100%
Total
71,646
51,051
77%
Sources:
Status of Wastewater Implementation, Monroe County, July 2012
Monthly Utility Update, City of Marathon, August 2013
74
5
1-12
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
1.5 PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PARTICIPATION
The Florida Keys canal network is a v ital economic element within all Keys communities
because it provides access to a host of Florida's most valuable and unique natural resources.
While the canals provide access to the resources, they are also a conduit for direct introduction
of pollutants into surrounding waters which can negatively impact the near shore marine
environment upon which the community depends. Because of the close proximity to water of all
the Keys landmass, nearly everyone living or visiting the Florida Keys will have some impact on
the surrounding water quality. This CMMP is intended to provide the public with an
understanding of the issues affecting water quality within the Keys and will identify opportunities
for water quality improvement through public participation. In addition, the CMMP describes
various opportunities for public involvement throughout the stakeholder planning process.
Florida is the only state in the continental United States to have extensive shallow coral reef
formations near its coasts. Coral reefs create specialized habitats that provide shelter, food and
breeding sites for numerous plants and animals, including spiny lobster, snapper and other
commercial and recreational species. The Florida Reef Tract (FRT) stretches 358 miles from the
Dry Tortugas National Park off of the Florida Keys to the St. Lucie Inlet in Martin County.
Roughly two thirds of the Florida Reef Tract lies within the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS) (FDEP, 2013). The aforementioned portion within the Monroe County is
the only section of the Florida Reef Tract that is located within the Gulf of Mexico's waters. As
such, the stakeholders within Monroe County are charged with the responsibility of managing
North America's only barrier coral reef. Furthermore, the socioeconomic importance of the reef
to Monroe County was documented in a 2007 -2008 socioeconomic study performed by the
FKNMS which concluded that more than 33,000 jobs and $2.3 billion dollars in annual added
revenue are directly attributed to Florida Reef Tract (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2013).
Information concerning canal water quality
improvements is being disseminated through
Monroe County's website
http://www. monroecounty-
fl.gov/index.aspx?N ID=598. A homeowner
questionnaire has been prepared and is included
in Appendix A or can be accessed on the
Monroe County website for interested canal -front
homeowners to provide feedback on their canal
water quality conditions. The public is welcome
to attend the WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee meetings held periodically.
1-13
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
2.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 OVERVIEW OF SCOPE
The CMMP scope covers a comprehensive water quality assessment of the entire Florida Keys
canal system to include the following elements:
• Review of project history
• Define project goals and objectives
• Update of CMMP database
• Implementation of adaptive management process
• Development of Keys -wide canal ranking criteria
• Overview of sustainable BMPs
• Research project funding mechanisms
• Evaluate future needs
2.2 WHAT DEFINES A CANAL?
The CMMP is intended to provide the Keys community with an understanding of how the canal
systems are affected by the surrounding environment and how improved management practices
can benefit water quality. For the purposes
of this CMMP, the term "canal" refers to a
manmade residential waterway system,
usually linear, with a common outfall or
mouth providing landowners with
navigational access to the adjoining near
shore water body. Most Keys canals are
associated strictly with residential
development as described in Section 1.3.
During the completion of the CMMP it was
noted that the list of residential canals that
were to be evaluated also included some
non -canal features, which have been
labeled in the database as `other' water
bodies. `Other' water bodies refer to canals
that were not developed or not maintained,
or are natural features such as
embayment's and retention ponds.
2-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
Canals are often connected with `boat basins' or marinas where multiple vessels are docked at
the same time. For the purposes of the CMMP, marinas are assumed to be commercial
operations and are not included in the residential canal assessment. Boat basins, depending on
their size, connection to a canal, and proximity to residential properties, may or may not be
included as part of the canal systems evaluated in this CMMP. While they are not technically
canals, boat basins share many of the same attributes as the adjoining canals and al I of the
Best Management Practices described in this CMMP will apply regardless of their inclusion in
this report. Although some boat basins are included, boat basins associated with the Keys
canals are not comprehensively identified and ranked as part of this report. Further assessment
will be required to fully inventory and assess all of the boat basins in the Keys.
2.3 CANAL RESTORATION ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE
As discussed in Section 1.2, the WQPP Steering Committee established the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to provide scientific and objective oversight to the
CMMP project. Subcommittee members consist of representatives from the following agencies:
• Federal: EPA, NOAA
• State: DEP, FFWCC
• County: Monroe County
• Cities: Islamorada, Key of Colony Beach, Layton, Marathon, Key West
• Other: Florida Keys Environmental Fund
The Subcommittee meets regularly to review progress on the project and to recommend the
appropriate action as necessary to facilitate implementation of various project tasks.
2.4 CMMP OBJECTIVES
Phase I of the CMMP developed a s et of project goals and objectives that were initially
approved by the Subcommittee in 2012. These goals and objectives were reviewed by the
Subcommittee again as part the 2013 Phase 2 CMMP and were approved without change.
An objectives statement was developed to provide a very brief summary of the overarching
goals of the canal management effort, capturing its overall intent in a few sentences that will be
readily understandable to policymakers, resource managers and the interested public.
A draft objectives statement, which was taken with minor modification from the 2000 Monroe
County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, was used as the starting point. After some
discussion of wording changes that would make the statement more applicable to canal
management issues, the Subcommittee adopted the following objectives statement for the
CMMP:
2-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
"The objective of the CMMP is to provide an ecologically sound and economically
feasible funding and implementation strategy for improving and managing the
environmental quality of canal systems in the Florida Keys. The plan will provide flexible
and cost-effective solutions that improve canal management practices throughout the
Keys and satisfy the existing and future needs of the community. It must address
affordability and equity issues, reflect key stakeholder concerns, and satisfy
environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines."
2.5 MANAGEMENT GOALS FOR PRIORITY ISSUES
Priority management issues and associated management goals were developed to guide the
CMMP canal restoration process. The priority management issues that were identified and
adopted by the Subcommittee are as follows:
• Water Quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
• Water Quality — Organic Material (e.g., Weed Wrack)
• Sediment Quality
• Habitat Quality
• Public involvement in the canal management process
The initial goals for the identified priority management
issues were developed based on discussion with the
Subcommittee during a meeting held on April 27, 2012.
The Phase 1 goals for the priority management issues
were reviewed with the Subcommittee during the
December 2012 kick-off meeting for Phase 2 CMMP.
No changes to the list of issues were proposed. The
following are the goals for the five priority management
s.
issues adopted for the CMMP. The goals are intended
to be protective of living resources, technically
defensible, quantifiable (where possible), readily
measurable, and challenging but achievable.
Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels that are
consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III waters. Class III criteria are
applicable to the canals which includes use for fish consumption, recreation, propagation and
maintenance of a healthy well balanced population of fish and wildlife.
The State water quality standards are detailed in Florida Administrative Code 62-302.
2-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c'
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack) Issues
Goal: In canal systems whose location makes them susceptible to receiving large inputs of
seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from near shore waters, install cost-effective barriers to
prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels that do not contribute to eutrophication,
hypoxia, or other water and sediment quality issues within the canals.
Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment toxicity in
canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from developing in canal
systems where they are not yet present.
Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal habitats that currently support native flora and fauna,
and improve water and sediment quality in other areas to levels that are capable of supporting
them.
Issue 5. Public Involvement in the Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a constituency of informed, involved citizens who understand the
environmental and economic issues involved in managing manmade canal systems.
2-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
3.0 UPDATED CMMP DATABASE
The purpose of the GIS database is to provide a central location to store information for the
residential canals in Monroe County so that an evaluation of potential water quality impacts and
selection of an app ropriate treatment technology can be made. The GIS database also
provides a mechanism to automatically assign attributes based on spatial location.
2012 Update to the 2003 Database
The canal layer that was developed for the
2003 Water Quality GIS Database required
significant updating due to software
updates and compatibility issues. Multiple
changes were necessary; the most
significant of which being the lack of a
spatial reference assigned to the canal
layer. T he DEP Albers HARN spatial
reference that was utilized during the
digitization of the canal features was
assigned to the layer; allowing the layer to
map properly in GIS environments with a
different spatial reference.
The canal features were digitized utilizing
six inch resolution aerials obtained from the
Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT). The modifications to the original
canal layer were captured as auxiliary
layers to facilitate identification of the
modifications. Distinct layers for added
263 BIG PINE KEY
263 9IG PINE KEY
FIC 353
RESICENTIA 263 BIG
PINE KEV
Canal_Name 263 BIG
PINE KEV
Mile_Marke 31
Bayside X
Oceanside
Weed_Gate X
Careen x
Culver! Ma
Bgekfill
OrganicRe
Pumping
E-ting_T Weed Gate
Area_ac 375 M
Le,olh_R 173993661
NUM or con o
Num or Mm 1
oeg_of_Sta 0591113
MID EI -1490
Max_EI -630
Ave -El -9 68
Ave_Org_Th 0.56
Canal_Cate
wa_summarrFair
W4_Ranking
00_mg_L 3.38
Turb_NTOs 073
Parcels 115
Tld_Ran_Ft 0.699999
canals, deleted canals, and merged canals
were created. Additionally, the added canals that were commercial/industrial (marinas) were
extracted from the added canals layer and allocated into a unique layer. Additionally, a layer
identifying boat basins was created.
The EPA data warehouse STORET was accessed to obtain all surface water quality samples
for the Florida Keys. The tabularized sample data was utilized to develop a po int layer
containing the sampling type and results in an attribute table. The latitude and longitude
provided in the tabularized data was utilized to provide spatial reference for the data points.
The water quality data collected between 1996 and 2011 as part of the Water Quality Protection
Program was obtained from the program website and incorporated into the database as well.
Additionally, the point layer summarizing the Environmental Resource Permit applications
provided on the DEP geo-data directory was utilized to identify bubble curtains and weed gates.
3-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
The canal database contained many attribute columns from the 2003 Canal Inventory and
Assessment that were considered no I onger necessary and w hich made the attribute table
cumbersome to review. The following list contains the attributes being selected to remain in the
updated CMMP database. An explanation of each attribute is provided in Appendix B.
• Canal Name
• Bayside vs. Oceanside
• Area (acres)
• Length (feet)
• Area to Length Ratio
• Perimeter (feet)
• Description of near shore feature (channel, shallow, spoil area)
• Canal outfall water body
• Energy at mouth
• Number of convolutions
• Number of mouths
• Orientation of mouth(s)
• % developed
• Historic water quality monitoring data
• Distance to FKNMS monitoring station
• Sewage service area/WWT District/connection status
Summary of Deficiencies Identified in CMMP Phase I
Phase I of the CMMP identified several data deficiencies in the project geo-database, primarily
lack of depth information, absence of organic thickness, and limited canal specific water quality
data. In order to address these limitations, a countywide bathymetric survey was completed as
documented in the June 13, 2013 Bathymetric Survey Report (AMEC, 2012). The bathymetric
survey quantified the organic thickness and canal depth utilizing a single beam dual frequency
echo sounder.
In order to obtain canal specific water quality data, a countywide field survey of the canals was
completed. A summary of the canal field survey methodology and resulting ranking criteria is
provided in Section 5.
Phase 2 Update to the Database
Numerous attributes were added to the project geo-database to further characterize the water
quality and physical conditions of the residential canals in Monroe County. The following is a
summary of the attributes that have been add ed to the database. An explanation of each
attribute is provided in Appendix B.
• Tidal Range
• Degree of Stagnation
• WBID
• WBID impairment for dissolved oxygen
• Number of parcels
• Aerial observation of seaweed
3-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• Existing water quality treatments
• Dissolved oxygen and turbidity readings from 2013 surveys
• Water quality summary from 2013 surveys
• Date of 2013 surveys
• Phase 2 Category
• Canal Ranking Number
• Recommended Technology
o Weed gate
o Culvert
o Culvert maintenance
o Backfilling
o Organic Removal
o Pumping
• Municipality or Unincorporated Monroe County
• Field comments
• Canal bottom elevation (minimum, maximum, and average)
• Average thickness of sediment
a C, -°
Table 1 provides a copy of the updated database for the residential canals in Monroe County.
The updated CMMP database can also be viewed through an associated CMMP Google Earth
KMZ file made available on the Monroe County web page or GIS shapefiles provided to Monroe
County with the CMMP deliverable.
3-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
4.0 KEYS -WIDE CANAL WATER QUALITY RANKING
4.1 OVERVIEW
One of the main objectives of the CMMP was to
prioritize the residential canals within Monroe
County related to need for water quality
improvements. A process was developed utilizing
water quality assessment data and physical
conditions of the canals that influence the ability to
improve the water quality and benefit the public.
The process included identifying the canals with
water quality that does not currently meet the State
of Florida's Class III Marine Surface Water
Standards. The impaired water quality in these
canals poses a direct threat to sensitive near shore
resources and could result in regulatory
enforcement if corrective action is not taken. In
order to meet the applicable water quality standard,
each canal with water quality impairments could
potentially require the implementation of one or
more restoration technologies.
came .
The 2012 GIS canal inventory database of Monroe County residential canals indicated
approximately 500 canals for potential water quality assessment and prioritization. A Keys -wide
canal water quality ranking process was developed that consisted of the following:
Completion of a Water Quality Assessment of the approximately 500 canals
Assignment of a Water Quality Classification of Good, Fair or Poor to each canal
Ranking Scoring Sheet applied to Poor Water Quality canals to further assist in
prioritizing need for water quality improvement.
A detailed description of the process is presented in the following sections.
Water Quality Assessment
Due to the large number of canals and pr ivate communities throughout Monroe County,
neighborhood canal networks were clustered together based on their proximity and common
physical characteristics. Representative canals were selected from within each cluster for
detailed water quality data collection and analyses. The similarities of the physical
characteristics of the canal clusters were verified through review of the GIS Canal Layer and
Canal Inventory Database as well as the 2013 Monroe County Canals Bathymetric Survey data.
4-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
Phase 2 of the CMMP included an extensive field survey to collect water quality and biological
data that could be used in the ranking process. In addition to performing an assessment of the
selected canals, a "drive by" of each canal within the clustered network was performed to verify
the similarities of their aerial interpreted characteristics. The "drive by" process provided field
personnel with the opportunity to assess additional canals within the clusters if they determined
that the selected canals were not representative of each individually clustered canal.
The initial water quality assessment of the
canals relied upon an ev aluation of the
following data sources:
1. Available water quality data
2. Empirical observations recorded
during the Phase 2 canal
assessments
3. 2013 Monroe County Canal
Bathymetric Survey data
Although additional sources of information were used to assess the water quality within each
canal, the primary method for determining a canal's water quality classification was through the
measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO). The DEP 2010 standards for DO concentrations in
Class III marine surface waters state that DO shall never be measured at less than 4.0 mg/L.
Furthermore, the DEP has stated that any Class III water body which displays DO levels less
than 4.0 mg/L should be classified as impaired. Class III surface waters includes the residential
canals located in Monroe County. The Phase 2 CMMP canal assessments measured DO at
various intervals throughout the canal's water column with the use of a calibrated YSI 556. DO
measurements were recorded on field data sheets in both mg/L and % saturation.
In addition to recording the water quality parameters
provided by the YSI 556, professional scientists
recorded visual observations detailing the absence or
presence of biological indicators of water quality. Due
to their specific sensitivities to environmental change,
algae, sponges, and t ropical fish were specifically
targeted for observation during the canal assessment
process. The following describes the process by which
sensitive resources were used as indicators of water
quality within the canals:
a. The presence of blue-green algae and brown
macro -algae were used as modifiers to indicate
sub -standard water quality. A Ithough blue-
green algae are not uncommon in residential
canals, excessive algal blooms which result in
algae covered substrate, floating mats, and
green tinted water columns were used as an
indication of diminished water quality.
4-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
b. The inability of green macro -algae (small plant -like organisms) to out compete blue
green algae in nutrient enriched environments made the observance of these small
plant -like organisms a useful indicator of good water quality.
c. Due to the extreme sensitivities of sponges, seagrasses, and reef fish to changes in
water quality, their observed presence within a canal was an effective indicator of good
water quality.
The third tool in summarizing canal water quality was clarity of the water column. "Water Clarity"
was used as a modifier to adjust a canals water quality summary based on an elevated turbidity
reading or visual observation with the use of polarized sunglasses.
4.2 PROCESS FOR DETERMINING A WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION
The initial step in the classification process involved a review of the DO readings collected for
each representative canal. Based on the above referenced regulatory guidance for Class III
water bodies, the lowest reported DO concentration within each assessed canal was
determined to be the appropriate value for determining a canal's water quality classification.
Due to the DO limiting conditions that exist within residential canals and the variability of a
single monitoring event, the primary ranking was either confirmed or modified based on the
biological observations performed during the Phase 2 CMMP canal assessment. The following
describes the process by which a canal was given a Water Quality Summary of either: Good,
Fair, or Poor:
• Good: If a canal displayed DO readings above 4.0 mg/L and di splayed no negative
biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Good water quality.
• Fair: If a canal displayed DO readings above 4.0 mg/L but displayed negative biological
characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Fair water quality.
• Fair: If a canal displayed DO readings between 3.0 and 4.0 mg/L but displayed positive
biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Fair water quality.
• Poor: If a canal displayed DO readings between 3.0 and 4.0 mg/L and but displayed
negative biological characteristics, the canal was field classified as having Poor water
quality.
• Poor: If a canal displayed DO readings less than 3.0 mg/L, the canal was field classified
as having Poor water quality.
4-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Water Quality Summary Classification Criteria
came .
DO Conditions
Biological Conditions
Water Quality Summary
> 4.0 m /L
Positive
Good
> 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Positive
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Poor
< 3.0 mg/L
N/A
Poor
Due to unique conditions which prevented direct or visual access to a few residences or a
restricted area within Monroe County, some canals could not be monitored nor assigned a
Water Quality Summary based on representative canal data. If a non -assessed canal was
located within a DEP Water Body Identification area (WBID) that had previously been denoted
as being impaired, the canal was given a Water Quality Summary of Fair. As a result of the
aforementioned process, five residential canals on the 2012 canal list were not ranked during
the Phase 2 CMMP. Please note 14 "other' water bodies were given a `Not Applicable' (NA)
water quality summary because they were not residential canals and the Water Quality
Summary methodology did not apply.
Example of a Good Water Quality Canal
Example of a Fair Water Quality Canal
Example of a Poor Water Quality Canal
4-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c'
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
4.3 CANAL RANKING AND NEED FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
4.3.1 Water Quality Summary
The Water Quality Summary allowed the canals throughout the Keys to be ranked by need for
water quality improvement. The canals designated as Poor water quality canals were
determined to be in most need, followed by the Fair water quality canals. The canals designated
as having Good water quality were of least need for water quality improvements.
4.3.2 Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet
AMEC created a C anal Ranking Scoring Sheet to assist in selecting canals for restoration
funding. The Phase 2 scoring sheet built on the initial scoring system developed during Phase 1
where organic matter accumulation was identified as a significant canal water quality factor.
Canals that routinely received seaweed loading throughout the year consistently displayed the
lowest oxygen levels of the Phase 1 assessed canals. Based on the findings of the Phase 1
CMMP, the previous ranking system divided "Severity of the Problem" into three subcategories:
DO readings, seaweed loading, and organic matter accumulation. Several additional factors
were considered as part of the Phase 2 ranking. The WQPP Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee, Monroe County and E PA approved the revisions to the scoring sheet. The
approved scoring sheet was comprised of six categories:
Category 1: Severity of the problem
Severity of the problem was broken out into the three sub -categories based on the findings
described in Phase I of the CMMP which detailed both the potential extent of the problem and
the influence of the contributing factors:
Sub -category 1A) Water Quality (scored from 0 to + 5): Scoring was based upon the
presence or absence of a water quality problem and to the degree at which a problem
existed. If there was no observed issue associated with the degradation of water quality, the
canal should receive a score of 0. If no problem existed then sub -categories 1 B and 1 C were
skipped. If DO was measured in excess of 4 mg/L, there was no observed odor, and turbidity
was below 1 N TU's, the canal should be scored a 0. If either DO was measured between 2
mg/L and 4 m g/L, there was a noticeable odor, or turbidity was between 1 and 3 N TU's the
canal should receive a score of 3. If DO was measured less than 2 mg/L or turbidity exceeds 3
NTU's, the canal should receive a score of 5.
Sub -category 1 B) Organic Matter Loading (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring was based on the
potential entry of seaweed loading into the assessed canals. Canals that do not receive
seaweed loading received a score of 0. Canals that receive seasonal loading received a score
of 3 and canals that receive continuous inputs of seaweed were scored a 5.
4-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
Sub -category 1 C) Organic Matter Accumulation (scored from 0 to +5) Scoring was based on
the presence of accumulated organic matter (as indicated by the 2013 bathymetric data).
Canals that displayed a measured organic layer thickness of less than 0.5 feet received a score
of 0. C anals that displayed a m easured organic layer thickness between 0.5 and 1. 0 feet
received a score of 3 and canals that displayed a measured organic layer thickness greater than
1.0 foot should receive a score of 5.
Category 2: Habitat quality (scored from 0 to +5)
Scoring was based on the habitat characteristics of the assessed canal. ( Guidance: the
observed presence of tropical fish life within a stabilized canal was utilized to adjust the score
downward. Accordingly, the presence of brown algae or blue-green algae was used to adjust
the score upward. Additional flora and faunal observations were used in the scoring process
based on their known water quality characteristics).
Category 3: Potential for achievement (scored from -10 to +10)
The category was defined as the potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water,
sediment or habitat quality within the project canal. Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low
to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to high potential,
for improvement and/or protection within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -
10) could be applied for projects that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Category 4: Supplemental benefits (scored from -10 to +10)
The category was defined by the potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water,
sediment or habitat quality within the halo or near shore zone. Scoring values from 0 to +5
represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10 represent above -average to
high potential to provide improvement and/or protection in the halo or near shore zone.
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have deleterious
effects within the halo or near shore zone.
Category 5: Project constraints (scored from 0-10)
This category was defined by a project's implementability. This criterion accounts for factors
such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation requirements, and potential
complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0
indicating significant difficulties in implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of
implementation.
Category 6: Public benefits (scored from 0 to +10)
The public benefit criterion was related to the number of users affected by the proposed project.
A value of 0 means 0-9 users (parcels) would be positively affected by the project, a value of +4
means 10-44 users would be positively affected by the project, a value of +7 means 45-79 users
would be positively affected by the project, +10 indicates that 80 or more users would be
positively affected.
Although all six categories were scored, severity of the problem, habitat quality, and potential for
achievement were weighted greater than the remaining categories due to their importance in
determining the need for improvement. An example scoring sheet included as Table 2 shows
the weighting factors the criteria.
4-6
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
Following classification of canals into their respective water quality categories, canals with Poor
Water Quality Summaries were further prioritized for need for restoration utilizing the numerical
ranking from the Canal Ranking Scoring Sheet.
4.4 RESULTS
Upon ranking of the residential canals related to water quality as part of Phase 2 of the Monroe
County CMMP, 171 canals received the ranking of Good, 180 canals received the ranking of
Fair, and 131 canals received the ranking of Poor. Table 3 shows the Water Quality
Summaries.
The results of the Canal Ranking Scoring for the Poor Water Quality canals are also shown in
Table 3. The completed scoring sheets are included in Appendix C.
The results of the "Keys Wide Ranking" for each residential canal in Monroe County can either
be viewed through an associated CMMP Google Earth KMZ file made available through the
Monroe County web page or through the GIS shapefiles provided to Monroe County with the
CMMP deliverable.
Please note that the majority of the water quality assessments were performed during the winter
season. I t was assumed that a P oor water quality determination during the cooler winter
season would be conservative and that the same or worse condition would exist during the
summer. This assessment would thus identify the canals with the worst conditions. Some of
the canals evaluated as having Fair water quality based upon the cooler season data my show
greater impairment during the summer months and f all into the Poor water quality category.
Evaluating the seasonal influence on water quality was beyond the scope of this grant.
4-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c'
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
CANAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
The Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in this section include things that
homeowners can implement to assist with limiting impacts to the canal water quality as well as
restoration technologies that will assist with water quality improvements. The restoration
technologies focus on increasing DO levels through reducing organic loading to the canals
and/or and improving canal flushing. The restoration technologies currently included in the
CMMP are technologies that have been permitted and implemented in the Keys. In addition to
the traditional BMPs discussed in this document, the potential for deploying alternative
technologies appears promising; however, additional research on their applicability to residential
canals and their impact within the coastal halo needs further investigation.
5.1 HOMEOWNER STEWARDSHIP
Educational Programs and Outreach
Numerous resources are available to assist both homeowners and business owners throughout
the Florida Keys with BMPs. T he Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
maintains an extensive database of technical BMP literature
(htt:11 vu.de.state.fl.uslwaterinonointlubs.htm). One publication in particular is written
specifically for waterfront homeowners and is applicable to nearly all Keys residents
(htt�:1l uU.de�.state.fl.us/waterinon�ointldocslnon�ointlw�o�-book-final.�df).
All homeowners, waterfront or not, have an important role to play in the achievement of water
quality restoration goals for the Keys canals. This will be true regardless of the success of local
projects like those proposed in this CMMP or regionally significant projects such as improved
wastewater or stormwater treatment. Individual homeowners and business owners can assist
the community simply by adopting, at a minimum, the following BMPs:
• Follow label instructions on all yard chemicals and maintain appropriate application
setbacks along shorelines
• Ensure that lawn care professionals practice appropriate level of care when applying
chemicals or working around the water
• Prevent grass clippings and other yard debris from entering stormwater systems and
canals
• Prevent fertilizers from reaching impervious surfaces like sidewalks or driveways where
runoff will carry it into the stormwater system or nearby canal
• Reduce overspray to driveways and sidewalks from irrigation systems
• Avoid cleaning fish or disposing of fish carcasses in canals
• Limit potential for soil erosion by adopting proper landscaping practices (Florida Yards
and Neighborhoods Program)
• Wash vehicles in locations where water will not run into storm drains or nearby canals
• Service vehicles routinely to prevent oil, antifreeze and other vehicle fluids from leaking
5-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program, administered by the University of Florida
Institute of Food and A gricultural Science (IFAS) is also a useful resource for Keys residents
interested in improving canal water quality. This program offers helpful advice from identifying
drought -tolerant Florida -Friendly Landscape plants to small-scale homeowner construction
projects like backyard swales and rain gardens. T he Florida Yards and N eighborhoods
Handbook are available at http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/materials/FYN Handbook vSept09.pdf. The
Monroe County Extension Service and the Nature Conservancy can assist homeowners with
the appropriate plant selection which will reduce the amount of water, fertilizer, and other lawn
chemicals needed to maintain a healthy landscape. The web address for the Monroe County
Extension Service is http://monroe.ifas.ufl.edu/.
Management of Boats, Boat Basins, and Marinas
Throughout Monroe County, residents and tourists
alike utilize the finger canals, marinas, and boat - - --
basins to store and maintain their personal {
watercraft. One of the basic water quality
improvements boat owners can implement is
correct containment and disposal of sewage.
Monroe County has contracted with Pumpout USA
to provide pump out services to recreational vessels -
anchored in waters throughout the Florida Keys - "' ` ' `'
within unincorporated Monroe County. Boaters can a
call (305) 900-0263 to schedule a pu mp-out or
register on-line for routine pump -out service from -
Pumpout USA at www.po-keys.com. B oaters
utilizing the service will be provided with a sticker to
be displayed on the vessel indicating participation in
the pump -out program and an orange flag to be
flown when in need of a pump out. This service also
covers recreational boats located at docks along the canals and is free to the public. In addition,
there is more than 30 other pump -out facilities, including both mobile and I and based
operations, located throughout the keys. The following link provides the locations of these
pump -out facilities: http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/l 155.
Boat maintenance is a necessary activity that must be conducted properly to minimize the
potential of degrading local waters. Without proper precautions, contaminants originating from
boats and boat maintenance activities can be transported to the local Keys waterways either
through stormwater runoff or by direct discharge from the boats or boat maintenance activities.
In order to improve Boater awareness, the FEP established the Pitch In and Pump Out program
(http://www.dep.state.f1.us/pitchin-pumpout/) to encourage operators of marinas and boa t
enthusiast to assist in the protection and cleanup of coastal waterways. Utilizing the following
BMPs and maintenance guidelines which were developed by the DEP, marinas and boat
owners can substantially reduce the amount of potential contaminants originating from both their
commercial and recreational activities:
5-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Maintaining Marinas and Boat Basins
a C, -°
• Sweep or vacuum around hull maintenance areas, roads, and driveways frequently
• Sweep parking lots regularly
• Plant turf or other vegetative cover between impervious areas and manmade basins or
canals
• Use porous pavement where feasible
• Install oil/grit separators and/or vertical media filters to capture pollutants in runoff
• Add filters to storm drains that are located near work areas
• Place absorbents in drain inlets
• Use chemical and filtration treatment systems only where necessary
• Install fish cleaning stations that include adequate disposal of fish parts.
Improperly disposed fish waste is a major source of pollutants within the Keys canal system and
Monroe County is addressing this issue as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed
language for the updated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan related to fish cleaning in canals
states:
Policy 202.2.2
Within one (1) year after adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Monroe
County shall evaluate options for reducing the amount of fish and lobster cleaning offal
that is discharged into canals. This evaluation should include public facilities such as
marinas and private areas such as private backyard docks.
Options to be considered, shall include, but not limited to:
(a) requiring that drains from fish cleaning tables be plumbed to a central sewer
system;
(b) requiring that carcasses be macerated for chum (put in bags and frozen for a
subsequent trip), deposited in an air -tight container for routine refuse pickup, or
hauled away by a commercial chum or trap fisherman on contract; and
(c) implementing an educational signage and awareness program.
Recreational fishermen and waterfront homeowners can assist Monroe County with this effort
by providing proper disposal of fish waste.
Boat Cleaning and Operation
• Wash boat hulls above the waterline by hand and remove boats when feasible from the
water for cleaning so debris can be collected and disposed of properly
• Attempt to wash boats frequently enough that the use of cleansers will not be necessary
• If using cleansers, select only those that will have minimal impact on t he aquatic
environment
• Switch to long-lasting and low -toxicity or nontoxic antifouling paints
• Avoid in -the -water hull scraping or any abrasive process done underwater that could
remove paint from the boat hull
• Ensure that adequate precautions have been taken to minimize the spread of exotic and
invasive species when boats are transferred from one waterbody to another
• Minimize the impacts of wastewater from pressure washing
5-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• Restrict boater traffic in shallow -water areas
Establish and enforce no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion, and shoreline
damage
As part of the DEP's effort to promote the use of the above
referenced BMPs, the Department has established a Clean
Marina Program (CMP) which details numerous ways boat
owners and commercial facilities can protect water quality
by implementing proper boat and boat storage
maintenance. The CMP is a voluntary designation program
with a proactive approach to environmental stewardship that
applies to boatyards which repair recreational and small
commercial vessels for Florida's waterways. Participants
receive assistance in implementing BMPs through on -site
and remote technical assistance. To become designated as
a Clean Marina, facilities must implement a set of
environmental BMPs designed to protect Florida's
waterways from nonpoint sources of pollution. These BMPs
address critical environmental issues such as sensitive
habitat, waste management, fish waste management, storm
water control, Will prevention and emergency
preparedness. This information is available at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/files/Clean Marina Action Plan Guidebook.0
5.2 RESTORATION TECHNOLOGIES
Many of the Keys canals exhibit water quality impacts that will require the implementation of
physical and mechanical restoration technologies. The restoration technologies presently under
consideration during the Phase 2 CMMP focus on improving the canal water quality conditions
of related to reduced dissolved oxygen and lack of flushing. They include:
• Removal of accumulated organics from within canals
• Weed gates, air curtains or other physical barriers to minimize additional organic
accumulation in the canals
• Culvert connections to facilitate flushing
• Pumping systems to facilitate flushing, and
• Backfilling to prevent occurrence of deep stagnant zones.
The following sections provide a brief description of each of the above listed technologies along
with the type of canal conditions where the technology is most suited. The canal attribute table
includes a preliminary selection of applicable technologies for each canal. The methodology
employed in the technology selection process is also discussed below. This selection is only
preliminary and will require a s ite-specific engineering evaluation to determine the best
restoration for each canal.
5-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
5.2.1 Weed Gates/Air Curtains/Physical Barriers
Technology Description
Weed gates can be either comprised of
mechanical devices or air curtains that
physically block seaweed from passing
through the device. Weed gates are
designed to prevent floating, wind -
driven flotsum from entering and
accumulating in man-made canals
where it typically sinks and f ouls the
water. Many of the existing homeowner
installed weed gates consist of a floating
arm that contains hanging flaps often
made of rubber. The gates are placed
at a canal mouth to prevent floating
seaweed from entering the canal. The
gate swings open when applied with
slight pressure to allow access for boat
traffic. An alternative design is a static
came .
weed barrier comprised of pilings and plastic netting coupled with a section of a submerged air
discharge hose that creates an air curtain allowing boat traffic. The design of the weed gates
should consider the natural movement of seaweed along the shoreline and configured parallel
to land such that dead zones adjacent to the canal are not created where seaweed can
accumulate.
System components consist of pilings, plastic netting, air hose, air emitters, and a regenerative
blower. A staging area and a power supply (electric or solar panel) for the regenerative blower
are required. Some maintenance is required to ensure continued effective operation.
Application
Technologies that reduce the input of seaweed loading into a canal are most applicable to
canals that are subject to high loadings of seaweed and flotsam. The orientation of the canal
mouth and location in relation to open water affect the susceptibility to entry of wind driven weed
wrack. The configuration of the canal also affects whether the weed wrack will exit the canal or
be trapped in a `dead end' canal section.
A review of aerial photography was utilized as a preliminary method to indicate whether a canal
experiences weed wrack loading. However, aerial photography only provides a single snapshot
of a canal, and may not identify potentially impacted canals if the photography is not collected
during the appropriate time of year.
5-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
The primary method for a canal to be selected for the consideration of the installation of a weed
wrack gate was if seaweed accumulation was visually observed during field site visits, if the
canal already had an existing weed wrack gate that was not functioning properly, or if
homeowner interviews indicated the presence of weed wrack loading. Additional homeowner
feedback concerning the weed wrack loading in their canals may increase the number of canals
in the database that should be evaluated for installation of weed gates.
5.2.2 Organic Removal
Technology Description
The decomposition of the weed wrack material that has settled on the canal bottom can
consume large amounts of dissolved oxygen, and can deplete the viability of a canal's
ecosystem and the adjacent near shore waters. O rganic removal consists of removing the
decomposed weed wrack material present at the bottom of a canal. Due to the fine particle size
of the decomposed weed wrack material, mechanical excavation of the organic material is not
feasible. Therefore, a hydraulic dredge is the preferred means of removal of the organic
material. A logistical limitation of the use of the hydraulic dredge is the large volume of
suspended sediment and extracted water that requires stabilization, and the space
requirements associated with the stabilization process. Typical hydraulic dredging projects
utilize constructed dewatering stabilization cells that are built with earthen berms. However, it is
anticipated that space limitations in the residential canal neighborhoods will require an
alternative method to dewater the dredged material such as geo-tubes. Geo-tubes are
comprised of specially formulated geo-
textile that allow for dredged material
to be placed into the geo-tube, and for
the entrained water to be dec anted
from the dredged material. Several
site characteristics must be evaluated
prior to implementation of an organic
removal project. These include
assessment of navigational capacity to
allow access of the dredging
equipment, available space for
dewatering staging area, access of
transportation vehicles to the staging
area, and characterization of the
sediments to determine appropriate
disposal options.
5-6
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Application
As discussed in section 3.0, AMEC conducted a Keys -wide bathymetry survey which provided
approximate soft sediment thickness data for the canals evaluated in this CMMP. Canals with a
soft sediment thickness greater than 0.75 feet were considered potentially suitable for organic
removal. Additional site -specific information such as percent organic content will be necessary
to verify potentially suitable canals.
5.2.3 Canal Backfilling
Technology Description
Canal backfilling would be performed in order to decrease
the depth of a c anal to promote flushing and
reduce/eliminate stratification. Prior studies have indicated
that approximately only the upper 6 f eet of the canals will
naturally flush in the shallow Keys near shore environment
(Kruczynski 1999). Filling in of abrupt changes in depth or
sink areas to six or eight feet would assist in eliminating
stagnation and increasing circulation. Flushing is typically
hindered by the fact that both the canal sill and the waters
surrounding the Keys are typically shallower than the canal
bottom. This difference in depth hinders mixing in the lower
depths of the canals. This option would work best in canals
where there was sufficient energy, either from tidal
fluctuations or wind force, to promote flushing at the canal
mouth once the deep stagnant zone has been eliminated.
Application
A canal was considered to be t he best candidate for backfilling if it was observed in the
bathymetric survey to exhibit an average canal bottom depth greater than 10 feet. Due to the high
unit cost of backfill, further hydrodynamic evaluation is suggested to determine the quantity and
placement of fill that is required to provide adequate flushing for a canal prior to initiating the
backfilling activities.
5.2.4 Culvert Installation
Technology Description
Culverts could be i nstalled between canals or between
canals and thin land strips to improve flushing within them
in a similar fashion to flushing channels. Based on canal -
specific hydrology, larger or smaller diameter culverts may
be more applicable. Culverts could be installed in any
lithology, but would still need an energy source to induce
flushing such as a channel at the outfall mouth.
5-7
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
came .
It is recommended that culverts be equipped with manatee grates to prevent entry of wildlife or
humans. Culverts are prone to clogging and require maintenance.
Application
An inspection of the canal and shoreline features was completed utilizing aerial photo review. A
canal was selected as a candidate for the installation of a flushing culvert if it was apparent that a
connection between that canal and another or the near shore waters could potentially increase
flushing. Field verification of the applicability of a culvert installation will be required at each
proposed canal location. The GIS database also contains information on existing culverts that
were noted during field visits that required maintenance or modification to work effectively.
5.2.5 Circulation Pumping
Technology Description
Pumps can be installed to promote water circulation within a canal.
Water can be pumped into a ` dead end' canal from a mangrove
creek or near shore open water area to increase turnover of water in
the canal system. Pump installation must be designed to prevent
adverse secondary effects such as resuspension of sediments or
bottom scouring. Diffusion emitters can be utilized to prevent
excessive velocity and to assist in mixing. Pumping systems must be
designed in such a way that they do not produce negative impacts to
the near shore waters which are designated Outstanding Florida
Waters. An alternative design is to pump water out of the `dead end'
of the canal and discharge it to adjacent wetlands for filtration.
Circulation studies by a qualified engineer would be needed t o provide an effective design. In
order to design a pumping system certain design criteria are required. These include the volume
of water in the canal, the mixing characteristics within the near shore waters, and the flushing
provided by tidal movement.
Application
Canal physical features available in the canal attribute database that were identified as
contributing to water stagnation were utilized to calculate a `degree of stagnation' for each canal
to select locations that may require the installation of a circulation pump. The `degree of
stagnation' was calculated by first normalizing the values for area, length, number of
convolutions, and area to length ratio, where normalization was calculated by subtracting the
mean and dividing by the standard deviation for the respective attribute. A weighting factor of
0.25 was applied to the number of convolutions and the area to length ratio. The sum of all the
normalized values was then divided by the number of mouths and a tidal factor. The tidal factor
was determined from NOAA tide datums, and set to equal 1 if the average tidal range of the
canal was greater than 1.5 feet, 0.75 if the average tidal range was between 1.5 feet and 1 foot,
5-8
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
and 0.5 if the tidal range was less than 1 foot. The calculated value of `degree of stagnation'
was then normalized, so that canals that exhibited a degree of stagnation greater than one
standard deviation above the mean were considered to be s ignificantly stagnant, and that
increased circulation through a circulation pump (or culvert) would be required. Site specific
engineering evaluations of the applicability of pumping at these selected canals will be required.
5.2.6 Integrated Technology Application
The selection of the appropriate and m ost effective restoration for each canal may involve
multiple technologies and will require detailed site -specific engineering evaluation.
5-9
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
6.1 BACKGROUND
In June, 2012, the Subcommittee elected to proceed with an adaptive management process
using the following programmatic objectives as a framework for the Phase I CMMP:
• Definition of goals
• Planning and prioritization
• Implementation
• Monitoring
• Evaluation
• Adjustment.
The above objectives were approved without change by the Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee during the Phase 2 CMMP review process.
As part of the adaptive management process (Figure 6-1), each objective is periodically
revisited and evaluated to determine if adjustments are necessary.
Figure 6-1. Adaptive management framework
(Source: DOI and DOC, 2009)
• Refx p grxrls and indicatnrs
• Ecnloyical
• Sueiucwrrennie
• Parinershlp
performance
GOALS
ADJUST IF — — — — — w- °► PLAN and PRIORfrkZE
■ Goals \ Poeieres
• stralea/es \ +Strategies
■ Actlons \ • Practices
• -,- Ice + Priorlfire
• ShOrT and t \ \ •Actions
Fong term • Locations
� � •Resources
,'� • Align Partner
\ ~, resources
EVALUATE �1 IMPLEMENT
• Actions , •Coordinate psrtrr-
■ Ecosystem change activities and resources
• Science for sufticfent
• Aartnership performannp inrrplementaiion
0 Ouadedyalydannuafly MONrrOR
. Arhi L
• Ecosystem change
• PartnerstrJp
pertormarxe
6-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. ame__
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.2 EVALUATION OF CMMP ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Each of the adaptive management steps are provided in the following sections as approved by
the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.
6.2.1 Define Programmatic Issues and Goals
0
N
N
Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and Dissolved Oxygen -Related Issues
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels that
are consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III waters,
whose designated uses include human recreation as well as the propagation and
maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife.
Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack)
Goal: In canal systems whose location make them susceptible to receiving large
inputs of seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from near shore waters, install
cost-effective barriers to prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels that do
not contribute to eutrophication, hypoxia, or other water and sediment quality issues
within the canals.
Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment
toxicity in canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from
developing in canal systems where they are not yet present.
Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal
habitats that currently support native flora
and fauna, and i mprove water and
sediment quality in other areas to levels
that are capable of supporting them.
o Issue 5. Public Involvement in the
Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a
constituency of informed, involved citizens who understand the environmental and
economic issues involved in managing manmade canal systems
6-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
6.2.2 Plan and Prioritize
a C, -°
Phase 2 of the CMMP involves an evaluation of all of the approximately 502 Keys canals
in the GIS canal inventory database based on available water quality data and other
quantitative and qualitative information. Field data and other new information collected
as part of this phase was discussed in Section 3.
Prioritizing such a large number of canals required identification of geospatially similar
canal clusters which were typically organized by neighborhood canal networks.
Representative canals were then selected within each cluster for detailed water quality
data collection and analysis.
Water quality parameters characterized as part of this task included the following:
Dissolved oxygen concentration
Presence and type of algae or other biological indicator species
Water clarity
Dissolved oxygen concentration and relevant biological indicators were used to develop the
following canal water quality classification system discussed in Section 4.2:
Water Quality Summary Classification
DO Conditions
Biological Conditions
Water Quality Summary
> 4.0 mg/L
Positive
Good
> 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 m /L
Positive
Fair
3.0 — 4.0 mg/L
Negative
Poor
< 3.0 mg/L
N/A
Poor
Canals with Poor water quality were determined to bet he most in need of water quality
improvement followed by those with Fair and Good rankings.
6.2.3 Implement
Monroe County, municipalities and property owners, will be responsible for implementing the
canal restorations. The overall direction and oversight of the implementation of the CMMP will
be by the members of the WQPP Steering Committee and its Canal Restoration Advisory
Subcommittee (shown in bold), which include the following partners:
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• NOAA
6-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
• DEP
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC)
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Florida Keys Environmental Fund
• Monroe County
• Municipalities
• Village of Islamorada
• City of Marathon
• City of Key Colony Beach
• City of Layton
• City of Key West
• A citizen knowledgeable about the WQPP.
a C, -°
Recommended BMPs were discussed in Section 5. The results of implementation of those
restoration efforts can be evaluated and adjusted using the program's goals, objectives,
strategies and operational procedures.
6.2.4 Monitor
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), monitoring is critical to document changes in environmental
conditions and allows tracking of the outcomes of management actions and progress toward
goals. Additional baseline monitoring has been conducted as a part of this evaluation, but has
been limited to water quality field data and physical characterization of each canal. Additional
more extensive field collected data and I aboratory-based water quality analyses are
recommended to provide further quantitative data which can be used to evaluate performance
of future restoration projects. A comprehensive water quality monitoring program is currently
being evaluated by the Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee.
6.2.5 Evaluate
Evaluation includes assessing the effectiveness of management actions to achieve desired
outcomes, adequacy of available information to detect changes in the managed resources, and
the capacity of the management program and its partners to implement programs and actions.
Evaluation criteria will consist of the following:
• Review FKRAD implementation progress
• Review updated water quality response variables as available
• Review WBID impairment status
• Evaluate changes to biological diversity within canals
• Evaluate performance criteria developed for new BMPs
• Review participation from stakeholders
6-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
Formal evaluations should be performed periodically (e.g., every year) by the Canal Restoration
Advisory Subcommittee, with the results reported to the WQPP Steering Committee to provide
regular updates to administrators and s takeholders on the effectiveness of the canal
management program.
6.2.6 Adjust
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), the outcomes of the evaluation step can be used to develop
short- and long-term adjustments for management actions and partnership performance. Short-
term adjustments may be made to management actions or strategies or partnership capacity to
implement projects. Longer -term adjustments may include modifying goals and management
strategies and adjusting long-term monitoring programs. It is recommended that the adjustment
process includes the following steps:
• Refine methods based on outcome of BMP implementation activities
• Evaluate the cost effectiveness of BMP implementation activities
• Revise approach based on new technologies and improved scientific methods
• Adjust stakeholder responsibilities
• Develop revised goals.
6-5
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
7.0 PROJECT FUNDING MECHANISMS
7.1 RECURRING GRANT PROGRAMS
a C, -°
Attainment of sufficient project funding is one of the most challenging steps in any restoration
project. Once a lead agency is determined for a particular project, multiple federal and state
grant programs are available to support potential water quality and ecosystem improvement
projects considered for the Florida Keys canals. Each program has different eligibility and
matching requirements, but most can be appl ied to the various water quality or ecological
aspects of any project considered in conjunction with this CMMP. Agency managers for each
grant program should be contacted to provide the details necessary to write a successful
proposal. The table below identifies grant opportunities have been i dentified as potential
funding sources for Keys canal projects. Additionally EPA and DEP have special project funds
that are available for canal restorations.
Required
Required
Minimum
Project
Project
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Match
Objective
Stage
EPA
Reduce Non -
Section 319
/DEP
May, 2014
40%
point pollution
Conceptual
EPA
Mar/Jul/Nov
Reduce Non-
60% Design
TMDL
/DEP
2013/2014
50%
point pollution
/ Permitted
South Florida
0%
Habitat
Coastal Program
USFWS
April, 2014
(encouraged)
Restoration
Conceptual
Community -
Based Matching
TNC/
Habitat
Grants Program
NOAA
April, 2014
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
National Coastal
Wetlands
Conservation
Habitat
Grant Program
USFWS
June, 2014
25%
Restoration
Conceptual
Urban Waters
Water Quality
Small Grants**
EPA
January, 2014
$2,500
Improvement
Conceptual
*2014 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
7.2 GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Many of the requirements for the above grant programs are similar, although each grant
application has its own format and should be reviewed and completed on an individual basis.
The elements below are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple
applications:
7-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
u Applicant Contact Information
u Project Location Details
u Type of Project
u Project Objective
u Project Synopsis
u Project Description
u Expected Project Benefits
u Project Work Plan
u Project Monitoring Plan
u Project Budget
u Amount Requested
u Applicant Matching Amount
u Cooperating Partners/Match
u Benefits to Community
L Community Involvement
L Project Milestones
L Project Deliverables
L Project Team
u Required Forms
u Literature Cited
u Appendices
7.3 INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE APPLICATIONS
a C, -°
The project information in the checklist can be obtained largely from the information provided
from the descriptions developed for each project considered. More detailed information such as
project milestones and deliverables will need to be dev eloped from the available project
information when available. Specific budget information will need to be provided using the
individual grant formats. Information on the project team will also need to be assembled prior to
submittal.
The particular grant applicant will need t o determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for their respective project. Requirements for funding match
range from 0% to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing more than the
minimum amount. Community involvement and benefit is also generally encouraged and will
need to be considered when completing the applications.
Most applications require only conceptual plans and a r easonably well -developed budget.
However, the TMDL grant program requires projects to be at the 60% design stage, permitted,
and ready for construction. The projects described herein would need to be dev eloped
accordingly to meet the TMDL grant program requirements.
Specific forms are required for many of the applications and they provide specific details about
how the information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very
similar among grant programs.
7-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
7.4 COUNTY AND MUNCIPALITY FUNDING SOURCES
a C, -°
Funding for canal restorations can come from Monroe County and the five municipalities located
within Monroe County (Village of Islamorada, Layton, Key Colony Beach, Marathon and Key
West). Specific project scopes will need to be developed with the appropriate managers of
each government agency.
7.5 2012 RESTORE ACT FUNDING
The passage of the "Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and
Revived Economies of the Gulf coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act) could provide a
significant portion of the funding required to accomplish a multitude of projects geared toward
Keys canal water quality improvements. There are three different RESTORE Act funding
sources or `pots' that are potential sources of funding for canal restoration. The Federal Council
pot is potentially the largest of the pots. Monroe County submitted a project entitled "Monroe
County Canal and Stormwater Water Quality Improvements" to DEP (who has been assigned
the task of vetting Florida's projects) for evaluation for funding. The canal restoration project
budget requested was $27.5 million. The process of selecting projects to be funded through the
Federal Council has not been finalized as of the date of this report.
A second pot, the RESTORE Act Local Pot funding, will provide Monroe County with
approximately $2 million when funds become available. Monroe County has created a
RESTORE Act Local Advisory Committee to review, rank and recommend projects for the use
of these funds. RESTORE Act Local funding covers a broad range of eligibility requirements.
Monroe County has ranked these in order of project type preference as follows:
Monroe County RESTORE Act Local Advisory Committee Ranking of Allowable Uses
Use
Rank
Restoration and protection of natural resources, ecosystems,
fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal
wetlands
1
Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife and natural resources
2
Infrastructure projects benefitting economy or ecological
resources
3
Promotion of tourism in the Gulf region, including recreational
fishing
4
Workforce development and job creation
5
Coastal flood protection and related infrastructure
6
Improvements to state parks affected by Deepwater Horizon oil
spill
6
Implementation of federally approved marine/coastal management
plan
8
Promotion of consumption of seafood harvested from the Gulf
Coast region
9
Planning Assistance
10
7-3
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c'
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
Monroe County RESTORE Act selection criteria are as follows:
• Proposals will be evaluated based on t hese criteria: 1) need for and benefits of the
project; 2) cost-effectiveness and financial feasibility; 3) technical feasibility/probability of
success; 4) timeliness of implementation and completion; 5) consistency with approved
public plans/public support; and 6) project management capacity.
• Applications received by the due date, and which meet at least one of the allowable
uses, will be reviewed and scored by the members of the Monroe County Local Advisory
Committee.
• The Committee will meet in one or more noticed, public meeting(s) (dates to be
determined) to discuss, evaluate and rank project submissions.
• The list of ranked projects will be presented to the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners which will make the final decision on project awards.
The third pot is the "Gulf Consortium pot." This funding will bypass the state of Florida and go
directly to the 23 counties of the Gulf Consortium. The application procedures have not yet
been developed. When the procedures are determined, applications can be s ubmitted for
funding for Canal Restoration projects.
7-4
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
8.0 FUTURE NEEDS
a C, -°
While this CMMP provided a comprehensive assessment of all Keys canals and includes a
framework for future progress, there are various elements which were either outside the project
scope or warrant further investigation. A list of data needs is provided to assist in future
additional work efforts and planning.
• Additional effort to identify and characterize boat basins should be considered as well as
certain canals which were inaccessible during the CMMP evaluation.
• Further assessment of canal bottom sediments to determine organic content and impact on
canal water quality would assist in better evaluating the need to remove these materials.
• Water quality investigations should be ongoing and expanded to include more frequent and
seasonal data collection and analyses to determine correlations between water quality
conditions and t ime of year and t o evaluate the impact on the CMMP Water Qualify
Summary Classifications.
• Significant weather related episodic events should be investigated to determine potential
migration of deep canal water and effect on the coastal halo.
• New and emerging water quality standards should be incorporated into the CMMP process.
• The CMMP database and canal rankings should be periodically updated with new
information.
• The Canal Restoration Advisory Subcommittee should consider enhanced coordination of
water quality collection efforts conducted by the DEP for WBID impairment determination
purposes.
• Restoration projects implemented as a result of this CMMP should be evaluated closely to
determine their effectiveness based on both water quality and ecological response factors.
Prior to project implementation, it will be important to determine a comprehensive baseline
condition. T he evaluation should consider a w ide range of parameters including water
quality conditions (both field and analytical), homeowner survey data, ecological field
surveys, habitat surveys, and assessments of both stormwater and wastewater inputs within
the project area.
• Emerging technologies should be evaluated for feasibility and effectiveness for improving
canal water quality.
• Greater homeowner and public outreach programs should be implemented.
• Research funding sources for canal restorations and submittal of application packages.
• Research into development of a methodology for canal restorations to become a part of
mitigation banking would provide a long term funding source for canal restorations.
8-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)meC� c"
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2012. Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure 2013. Technical Memorandum Task 1 Bathymetric Surveys
of Residential Canals.
Briceno, H.O., and J.N. Boyer. 2009. Little Venice water quality monitoring project final report.
USEPA, Atlanta, GA and FDEP, Ft. Myers, FL. 81 p.
CDM. 2001. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Monroe County. K ey
West, FL. 304 p.
CDM. 2011. Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update. FDEP. Tallahassee,
FL. 52 p.
CDM and URS. 2008. Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 149 p.
CDM and U RS. 2008b. Northern Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FD EP.
Tallahassee, FL. 136 p.
CDM and URS. 2008c. South -Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation.
FDEP. Tallahassee, FL. 126 p.
CH2MHILL. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Vols. 1 and 2. Monroe
County. Key West, FL. 219 p.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2009.
Strengthening Science and Decision Support for Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay and its Watershed. A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202f of Executive Order 130508.
DOI and DOC. Washington, D.C. 58 pp.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Strengthening the Management,
Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA, Annapolis, MD. 122
PP.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2013). Florida's Coral Reefs. Website
Accessed August 28, 2013 htt�:// vv.de.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/coral/
FDEP. 2011. Site -Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Florida Bay — Draft. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. 52 p.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary; National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (2013).
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Socioeconomic Factsheet. Website Accessed August
28, 2013 http:l/sanctuaries.noaa.ov/science/socioeconomic/dfslfk final.df
9-1
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
a C, -°
FKNMS. 2007. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised Management Plan. FKNMS.
Marathon, FL. 382 p.
Goodwin, C.R. 1991. Simulation of the effects of proposed tide gates on circulation, flushing
and water quality in residential canals, Cape Coral, Florida. U.S.G.S. Open -File Report 91-237
Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, effects and
solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Water Quality Protection Program.
Marathon, FL, 65 p.
National Research Council. 2002. A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 180 p.
NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in
the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC. 241 pp.
URS. 2001. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Canal Impact Assessment Module. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL and Florida Department of Community Affairs,
Tallahassee, FL. 173 p.
USACE and S FWMD. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Florida
Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West
Palm Beach, FL. 214 p.
USACE and SFWMD. 2006. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program: Program
Management Plan (Final). USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL. 114
P.
USEPA. 1975. Finger -fill canal studies: Florida and North Carolina (EPA 904/9-76-017).
USEPA, Washington, DC. 232 p.
USEPA. 2001. National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
from Marinas and Recreational Boating (EPA 841-B-01-005) USEPA, Washington, DC. 209 p.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and D OC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2009.
Strengthening Science and Decision Support for Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay and its Watershed. A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202f of Executive Order 13508. DOI
and DOC. Washington, DC. 58 pp.
9-2
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
FIGURES
amec
w
Cudloc 'r;oY a Bi_g,Pine K
Sugarloaf tiey
-
*.40Mgers KeydSto"cka n tl
roe
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
TABLES
amec
Dm
3Z
3
Dm
3Z
3
Dm
3Z
3
Dm
3Z
3
Dm
3Z
3
Dm
3Z
3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�����0����0����0����0�����
�����e����e����e����e����s
.'O
O
m
z
n
z
n
n
ti
ti
.'O
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
Dm
3Z
3
O�
3 O
A
O
m
z
ti
D
n
D
Z
D
D
ti
ti
A
C
ti
m
ti
D
m
-
n ns fin»
3
Er 9n
D.
o
3
2 3ol
3
3
3
n
F-
3
o
3 3
3
o
-
n 3
6
'
a
3
3
i s n 3
_Er
3
s3
o
n
7
F'
ErD
A
3 A
F
n 3
i v
o
wl
F
a
n
_
M
Er
—zlHT
o
_
o
F
n
3
F
3
o
F p
n 3
p
?
zl
in
n
zl
F
3
Er 3
-
o f
i
s Ezl
n
F
o
o
CD
Er
E
w
n
F
n 3
_
3
F 3
stl
zl
3
s 3
3
zl
F
u+ F
n
s
—
o
z
o
3o
D
3
o
o
3
A
o
s
3
D
3
3
3
v
CD
0
OD
N
A w
m 0
N
(J 1 (J 1
(J 1 (J 1
(J 1 A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W to
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
O
O O
z z
O O
WNO(D
W v
dNA
WNO(D
W v
dNA
WNO(D
W v
dNA
WNOv
W J
M
T.T.T.T.
DmA
mmmmDDmm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-<r-r--<Zzzmmzz
mmmm�mmDDDmmm�mm
o
mDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
0000c�00c,c000
fD
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000ooc)0OO
rrrD
rr
C
C C
0 D
C C
WWW00Woo
mm
00
N
91 91
91 91
91
91 91
91 91
91 91
O O
O O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
'xxxxxxx
NNNN
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
ANNNNNNNd)d)d)d)d)d)d)d)d)d)N
N
N N
NNNNNNNNNNNp�
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
0000000
W
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
N
Q
N
v 0
XX
X
X
X
XXXX
XX
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
(M
ao
(o m
N_
0000000
0000000
Q
T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.7.7.7.7.7.7.7.7.7.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.
T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T.DDDm
m
m m
�Z
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r�������
D3
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDmmmmmmm
(oz
00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 m
m m
m m
m m
0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0
00
0000000000
r
r r
r r
nnBB
r r
C
C C
C C
C C
W
W W
W W
W W
7
K
0 0
ss
;u
cn
NNN
01NNNN"Mm
mm
01NNNNNNN
NNNNNNNZO
(Dlz
N
NN
N
NN
NNNN
NW NW
NW
NW
�N
NW
N N
N NA
CNN�NN(D
N
N N
N N
N N
N
� N
�N
�N
D
N
NN NN
OO
NNW
ONO
O
O
O'O
O
OO
OO
-I O
OO
OOOOOmOOO
nDO
O
''0O(pOOJO
O Ov
�m00(O(O(O��
W W
W
W W
W W
W W
W
W W
N W
W W
W N
r r
W
W W
W
W
W
W Q
W W
Q Q
N
N
A
vvvvvvv�
vvvvv00
00m00000m00m0m00
CO)
O O
OmO
0
0 0m0m0
0 0m0
0 0
O
0 0mOmO000m000
o
D
D D
O O
0 0-
-•O
0 0
O
0 0
O O
00
O -•O
OO
O
-•O
- -•O
O o
O
�OO�
CLCL
O.O.O.O.O.�OCL
CL��O.O.
D
n
m
8 (O
V
00 V
0) V
V
(O
(O (O
00
00
(O
00
w
0) w
8
00 00
A
Obi
� �(O
�A
V (O
(T
W
W A
AO
0)
N
V O�
�O(T
7
0T
o
Z
Hill
Hill
iiiiii
Hill
Hill
lill
I
1
11
1
O
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
C
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Z
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
0 0
000000
0 0
000000
0 0000000
0 000000
0
0000000
0000000010100000000
v
CD
N
2
0)
(D
0000
0000
0000a
�
W.Z1 W.Z1
-.Z41 -.Z41
-.Z41 �-.Z41
-.Z41
-.Z41 -.Z41
-.Z41 -.Z41
-.Z41 0)
0)0)
0)0)
0)0)
0.Z)����
(O �(O
(O
(O (O
(O (O
(O (O
(0 W
v M
A WN0
0(O
00-400)(A
A W
N
0(00-4
MMA
W
N,,,,,,
Ol
Ol OI
OI On
N8o
Z-10)
(n A
W N
O
.Z
0
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 �0)
O (O
0Ln
rn
r r
DDDD�������0��������0000000
r r
A
w
OOOOOOO2O00002000000000000000mmmmmmm
00000
000000000000000�������
y
zzzzDDDDDDDooDDDDDDDD
GGGGGGGT.GGGGGGGG
DDDDmmmmmmm
2
mmmmmmmm
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
WDDDDDWDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 rrrrrrr
Z
OOOOzzzzzz-M--------mmmmmmm�����;u
Z
ZZZZZZZZ
O
O
m
zzzzmfTlfflfflfflfflmWmmmmmmmmWWWWWWW
WWWW133W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGiGiGiGiGiGiGi
(p
7�...
XXXXXXXOXXXXXXXX000OOOODOOOOODO000000000000000000000
mmmm
m
m
m m
m m
m
(O (O
(O (O
(O (O
(O (O
(O (O
(O (0
(0 (O
(O (O
(O (0
(0 (0
(0 (O
(O (0
(O (0
(0 (O
(0 (O
0 (O
o 0
0 0
�
N W
W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
A A
A 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 �I
v �1
CO 00
00 00
00 (O
(0 00
(0 00
00 (0
00 (0
0 (O
N
N
�
x
W
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
Q
N
v 0
XXXX
X
X
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
r.Lm
(D m
.Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1 .Z1
.Z1
N
Q
DDDD
0
000000000000000000000000000007������
�Z
zzzzDDDDDDD(�DDDDDDDD00(�(�(�(�(�n(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�(�000mmmmmmm
����GGGGGGGT.GGGGGGGG7.7.7.7.7.7.T.�7.7.7.7.7.7.7.7,7,
DDDDmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmm
T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T.-<-<-<-<-<-<-
rrrrr
y
D 3
�12
D
�1 �1
�1 �1
�1 �1
�1122222222222222222222222222222rr
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
(� (p
mo
z z
z z
m m
m m
m m
m oo
mmmm
mmm
m m
m m
o0 00
00 00
00 00
00 0o
pD o0
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
0o G�
G� G�
G� G�
G� G�
7�7�7�7,xxxxxxx0xxxxxxxx000000000000000000000000000000000000
mmmm
zzz
z
o
z
v
N(O(CD
N
N
N
N
N
N
�.-0
.-0
N
�.-0.X
A
0
01 '00
0 0
0
.-0.-0���.-O.-O
01
01
N
0
A n
01
.-O�v.-O.-Ov.-O.-Ov��Z
A
01
A A
A A
A
;a
A A
K)
0
'0N
A
cn
(CD
N
(O(CD
N
(O (�D
N
(p.-0.-0�.-0
N
.
.J�(n
CD
(D (D
(n (n
���
���
(p
N
J(A
N ���v
N
��
N v�
N
5
p3 �O
SIN
(Ov�
N
�
C N
O
00- O
�('('('('('
00- O�O�(0
d)d)�0)
N
(O p(O
N
p(O
(O
010�00��NN�Oo�
N
p(O
N
(O p
N tlI
p
0 0
OO Oop
N p
N
p0o
0o 00
N N
��Ol
N
v00vv0O0�v00�0""
Z,AA�
N
N
�(00��01�(D
N
('w
('�
000000�
N N
N N
N
0
w
w
w
ww000
mmm
I
W^�w��^'w0
I I
I I
I
m
w('
ww('
<
ww<<pww
m
fD
A
mm
m
mm
mm-
m
m
m--n--n
-n
m
mm-
mc
mc
m
�o
Z
O
mm mm
CO)
O
o
O O
0
O
O O
O
0
O
Q
O
o
O
o
O O
0 0
O O
o 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O
0
O O
o o
O
QQQQ
O
O
O O
O ODmOO
0 o
m
m o
m
00
-
D
n
ao
m-4
-4
m
-4
-4m
8 8m00
ao aommm
ao-4
00
mm
w
m
00)
00(00)
W
0000113
W Nf0
V
WW
00 V
(0
V W
A(Tw
N
7
0T
7
Z
O
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
(n ww
w
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
C
>>>>0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
DDDD0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
D
[
000
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
0
000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 000
0 0
0000000000000000
m
CD
w
0
_
U1
U1
A
W
A
N
M M
d)OlA
01 W
W
01 '
Nr0
r
01 A
0(0
r
D A
W
A A
vd)OIAC��N�O
A A
A
W
C —
A
8
A A',
W W
N
W
d)
r r
O O
r r
O O
r 0
O*
`m
r
m O
r r
O O
r
m 0
X
r r
0 0
r r
0 0
A
m L'
m v
m m
(0
W W
(0 W
W W
-I W
W W
OlA
W W
W N
W W
0(O
N N
W
N N
-40)01Ar
N N
N
W
N
N
0(0
W -I
r 0)(J1A
W N
0
22222m�222
22222mv
vvvz�vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvzvvvvvvvzvvvvvvv
mmmmm�
�����
mmmKmmmmmX
����D�����
Kmmm
D�;u;u,
rp>DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrrrrrr�rrrrrrr
m
KKKKKDDKKKMKKKKKD,Zm1mKKKmrzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ�ZZZZZZZ�ZZZZZZZ
y
DDDDD�mDDDnDDDDD�
i����mn���C����-jm>C-i-i-i��DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDDDDODDDDDDD
(�DDD-<
IZ
mmmmmc�CmmmKmmmmmc��Kmmmm
--------
- -
-
-
- -
- -
--
-
- -
- -
--
0,
OOOOOCKOOOMnnnnnCmoonnn-<m0000000000000000�0000000�0000000
C CCCCK
WCCCmCCCCC'nmCCCD-<ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZmzzzzzzZmZZZZZZZ
(o
K K
K K
K W
m K
K K
K
K K
K K
00 C
m
K
K K
p D
T. T.
co co
co co
co
mOo
W
W
W W
W W
m0o0o0o
pT.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.T.D
mmmmmyDmmmmmmmmmDKmmmmopmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmpmmmmmmmpmmmmmmm
mmmmmppmmmDmmmmmpmDmmm�p
0
0
-<-<-<-<-<mp0�-<Ml0mmmmmm
0-<-<-<
0
0
N
m
m
������������-J-J-j-jWWWWWWWWWWWWW000000000000000000WWWWWWW(0(0(0(0(0(0(0m(0(0m
A AAAA(n(n(n
A(n
m m
m m
m—j
N W
W W
(n(I
MM--4d)d
MM--4d)d)d)d)d)d
MM—Jv
W W
(00000000
00�
y
x
W
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
N
Q
N
N 0
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
XXX
X
XXXXX
r.L M
N m
r r
OOOOOrr000000000
r r
r
r
r r
r r
r r
r r
C C
vvvv
C C
N
C�Cv
v
vv
m2
mmmmmmm
mmmmmm**m�mmmmmmmmmxxxxrD
D22DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I
�����ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
m
DDDDD>>DDDDDDDDD>>DDDD
DDmmm
prprrv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�DrmDrv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�Drv�DrvrvrvrvrXXXXXmm�XXXXXXXmm
D�����DD�--i--i
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmc
nnnnn--,0
m
nnnnmm
ccc
_m
0��
0000000000000000000000000000000
mn
CCCCC
0
o C
C C
c C
C C
C C
o o
K K
K K
Z T
T Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
O
K K
K K
K C
C K
K K
K K
K K
K K
C C
W W
W CoT.mm
T
T.T.T.T.T.T.T.
T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
TT
WWWWWggWWW00WWWWW�gmmmmm��mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmWWmmmmmmmmmWWMXXXX-<
-<-<-<-<-<--<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<--<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-
3
;rN ;rN
mmmmm
;rN ;rN
;rNmm;rN;rN
mmmmmmmmm
mm����
mmmm
-
z
z
z
W
CD 0o
A
A
�,
m
AO
A '
v
N
(0 �,
A
A CD
vAA0
N
(O Ul
0
n
(\Jl 0
Av(Mj
N
(P (O
0
�Ivn
n N
(p (O
0
N n
(O (D
vvvO
N N
(O (O
CD
N
AOl
N
W
�,
�, �,
�, �,
�, �,
�, �,
A
(\Jl
�,
�, �,
Ol �`vAA
00 N
N N
O
W
N '
O
NOI
00 00
V OI
N (O
OI
(O
�,
OI OI
(O 00
OI OI
00 (O
CO)
�
<
N
N
' 0
N
0'
N
O_
N'
O(r�(r0�
N
O'
N
N O
N N
O_ N
N
O N
N
N N
N
N N
N N
(O W
N (p
N
0
N
0
N
O
N W
D0000��o�
(O
N N
O
N N
N N
O O
(0
N
N 0
N
0
N N
0 0
N N
0 0
I
(r.�(r
m w
w N
W Q�
0
W O
W
<<20<00<000Dw2�wwwwwwwNw�www
W<
Qw
CD
Q
N
w
0
m
ur
w0ww0wwwQ
m
ur
m
ur
Q
N
owwww
Q
w
fD
A
I
mmmmmmmmmm0��m�mm�0mmm��00�0000�00�0�000mmmm�mmmmmmmm�
CO)
m m
---------
m m
m m
m m
m m
-•0
�
0 0
o
0 m
o
O m
o
m O
o
O m
O--
m m
O 0
o o
0 0
O O
0 0
o O
0 0
O O
0 0
O o
0 0
O O
0 0
o O
0 0
o O
0 0
O o
m m
m m
O m
m m
O O
m m
m m
m o
CL
�
CL
CL CL
aaaa
CL CL
a
aaa�
D
n
m
(O
W
W
V
W
V
W
Ol
W
N
0)
N
0)
N
A
O
A
co
00
m
Ol W
m O
0)
N
7
0T
to
Z
O
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
r
C
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Z
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D
r
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
j
v
CD
A
0
AA00
A
W
N
(NO
�Omm
OO
000000Oo(ofofofofofofofofofoaoaoaoaoao�aoaoaoaoao����������rn���rn(O1nnOO�rr
00 0)01A
W N�0(0
W-4
MMA
W N�0(0
W-4
MM
DA
W
N�0(O
W-4
MMA
W
N�0(O
W AID
0ZZA00rn
0
0
0MMC
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDU)
DD
DD
7
T.T.ZZ7.DD
00
�—
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD**T.mmmmm7mmOOmmm
2
m
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 Z
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
n n
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmmD��DDDDDmDDmmDcc
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z Z
Z O
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z-<-<
0 m
m 000
�
W W
m
m
0
�mm
00
Omm
0
0
00o
ZZ
z;rl
;rN
mm
O1 O1
N�
O1 O1
W NNNA
O1 O1
O1 O1
W
O1 O1
W �A
(I1 W
W
O1 O1
AAA
O1 W
W
O1 O1
NA
w w
W W
w O1
W NAN
O1 O1
W W
W W
O1 O1
AA
W 0101
w m
O1
m m
O1 O1
O1A
O1 O1
01 O1
O1 w
O1 W
O1 O1
NN01010
O1 O1
01 O1
�Iv
O1 W
W
W W
W W
d) 0)
�01010D
0) 01
01 01
OD ODAA
-9 v
0
y
x
W
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
N
a
N
n 0
X
XXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXX
X
XX
XXXXXXXX
XX
X
XXX
XXX
X
ID
rD m
N
00
Omm
rl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
n n
000
nn
0
o
O
Im
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
D D
17 �1X
Ww
000
0
Z
w(n(n
Z Z
D
rO
r-
K K
��
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
(nw
n
222
n no
m
��
m z
0
z m
0 �mm
-i-i
D 3
(p rD
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
S S
S
r S
S
00
m 0
OOOOOOOOOOO00000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmmm��mmmmDDmm>CC
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z-<-<-<
m
m-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
g g
o
<
-<
00
Omm
zz
z;rN
;rN
m m
z
o
z
z
zz
0N0
0OAS�O
N
vCDN0O
O
m
m
.O
IDJS�
.O .O
O
.O 00
ON
O
NNN0
O
O
0
OD
NN
Oo�CCC�0
<0
m
`1c
W W
20-I
W
0p0p00:
O1
N
O1
Ol
00v00O00
Ol
Ol
Ol Ol
Ol
A
w
m m
m
m m
�
m
m m
m
ON000/tl0
Oo
000�00<
W (O
00
(O
NOOO
M
W W
W
N
W
N
W
W
W
W
W
p
(D
I 1
u
Q
W
111
p
O
W p
I (D
W W
W p
(D
p N
(D
W W
W—
W
w
y
A
-n-n-n
-�n-�n
--�n•
CO)
O O
OOOOooO-o-000000-0000-o---ooDOOOO000omm1m•OOOmmm000
O O
O O
OmOmO
O
O O
O OmO
O O
O m•
OmO
O
O
O O
O O
om
O
O
O
OOO
O O
O
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aa
aaaaaaaa
aa
aaaaaao
D
n
V
N
m
7
x
7
Z
O
m
C
C C
C C
C
-<
�i��������������������������zzzzzz
zzzz
ZZ
C()C()
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDnnnnnnrrryy
Z
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD-i-i-1
xxx���00
n
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO;U;UxxxxzzzDD
r
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
m Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z>>>>>>
00
j
0
mmmmmm
a:0
0 0
0 0
0
CD
m
Lrl
0
N
(P
N
O 1
A
A N
A
w N
W
N
N
(NJ( N
N N
N N
N N
N N
A
N�
A
W
N
N
N
N
NN
N�
O1
ODM
O0
M
M M
A A
A A
A
D
AAAAA
W
0W
W W
W WWWWN
N
NN0N
NWNO00
N NNNNNN
2
3N
0N
n
4D
>
N
KKKKKKDD�KK
>N
KKKKKKOD��
W
IWK�WKK
�N
�O(Wp0No
0")
00
WN�
�N�
K
0)
D
D
DDDDDDDDDD�DDDDDDODDDD
DDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DODOzDDDDDDDDDDOOODDDDDDZDDDDz00DDDZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Z
I
-j
-j -j
-j -j
-j -j
-j -j
-jZZ
-j -j
-j -j
-j�
-j
-j -j�
Z
2 Z
2 Z
m 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 D
D Z
2 2
2 2
2 2
m 2
2 2
2 m
y Z
2 2
2 m
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3
ODO(n7�000000000000>000000700007oD000700000000000000000000
z 0
z l
m z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z o
o 0
z z
z z
z z
z
z z
z m
o 0
z z
z m
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z
0
—
m
m
0
m
�0
W
N
N
0 AAA
O (0
(0 (00(00
W A
0 A
V
0 A
O0o
A A
0o 00
A A
0000
A A
0000
A A
0000
A O1
000
O1 A
0(000(0000
O1 O1
N O1
0 0
O1 N
(0�����(O��NNN
O1 O1
O1 O1
O1 N
O1 O1
...
O1
..
NN�
O1 w
W
w w
W W
W O1
W A
W W
w W
O1 O1
AN
W
W A
N
y
x
W
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
n
a
v 0
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX
XX
X
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXXXXX
a(MD
N m
W
W
W
W
N
7
I
m
DDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDODDDDODDDDDODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
DDDDZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDZDDDDZDDDDDZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
2222"'2222222222222222222"'2222"'22222"'22222222222222222222
ID
°i o
0000M000000000000000000070000�00000�00000000000000000000
zzzz�zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzmzzzzmzzzzzmzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
c
z
z
o
zz
z
0
0
0 0
0
L;u;u;u
A ���D���A
�vww�ww�w�
W
W
W �A0
N
0
ww�
W W
N
mw
(D �A$
N
g
�AOAA���(D
N N
c0 c
(D
N N
U1��OU1
Ul
0
(D ��(P������CCD
N
0
CD
�
N
O N
N N
N N
N W
N N
O O
N
N O
N
O N
N
O_ N
N N
O_ O_
w
N N
N
O ""
N
N O
N
N O
N
O N
N N
00 00
N
O N
N N
N N
O O_
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N
N O
N
O N
N N
Iv
01
0101
001
01 (D
O1��A
O W
W Ol
W p
W W
(D
p—
(D
W
W �0��
(O W
w W
W
W V
W N
N (0
p p
W
W N
W O�
N w
W W
O
p 00
O O
0o N
N N
V V
N�������
W W
W W
W N
W W
20��
W 0o
W N
(D
N
(D
N
r
Q
I
I I
(D (D
1D N
(D
N
A
m000v00v000m0mmm00mvvZmm0v0v0mmm000mm0m00v00v00000000000
CO)
m 0
-•0000000000-•0---•00-•ooD��0o000---•000--•0-•00000000000000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o m
O m
m m
0 o
m 0
0
m m
0 0
0 0
o m
m m
0 0
o m
m O
m 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.
0. rl
0.
rl
0. 0.
rl
rl
0. rl
rl
rl
rl
0. rl
rl
rl
0.
rl
0. rl
0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. CL
D
n
8
8
m
01
w
V
V
N
(O
O
(O
A
00
00
00)
7
0T
o
Z
O
C
C
C
C
mmmmmmm
mm
z_
z_
z_
z
DDDDnDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDnDDDDnDDDDDnDDDDDDDDDD0000000D00
Z
;[1 ;1
;1 ;1
O ;1
;1 ;1
;1 ;1
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
0 x
x x
x 0
x x
x x
x 0
x x
x x
x x
x x
X X
r r
r r
r r
r X
r r
DDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDXDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOD00
-i
-i -i
-i -iZZZZZZZ
-iZZ
00
00
;a 0000
OOO
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O�
O
O 00
O O
O O
O X
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
W W
W W
W W
W 0
W W
Z ZZZDZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZDzzzzDzzzzzDzzzzzzzzzzmmmmmmmzmm
1
m
m
m
m
I I
I
DDDDDDD
0000000
DD
00
j
0
0
I
0
I I
I -
- -
0
I
LL
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
v
CD
0)
0
N
CW
W
000(0j(A
O
W W
W W
W W
0000(0(0(0(0(0(0(0
W W
NNNNNNN
N
(0
N
r(0(0
N N
N N
W W
N N
W W
N
00
NNNN'
r W
W a or
N N
00 00
0(oNNNNNNN
r
N
-I
r-4-4-4-4-4-4-N
N
V
NNMM
N N
N NMN
Nd)N
N
0161N
N
M
0
Ac
�0(0(n(n(n(n(n
W N�0(0
00
-401
01A
W—�0(000-401—A
W N---00-40101A
���
W N�00)0)-40)(),
NA
W W'
0o
0
0 0,m,m
pp C
C C
C C
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
00 A
00 m
m m
m m
A m
m m
A A
A m
m m
m m
m m
W
(00o
W W
z
00—Z
p
(Np W
m
Cm
DD—G�G�G�G�G�-----------r------r---rrr------->—��---0
ODDDDDG�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�mG�G�G�G�G�G�mG�G�G�mmmG�G�G�G�G�G�G�yG�DD
01
D0�0
Dooci
m
m
m
m
O-OOz00000zzzzzzzzmmmxmmmmmmxmzzO00zzzzzzz�z��zzE�zOE�mz
DDm
rrrrr-----------
mmmmmmmmmmm�mmmmmm�mmm���mmmmmmm
m
mm
m(�
m
D
m
D D
mmm
D D
m
M
mmm
m
n
n
n n
n
...
2
O
2 2
00
0 2
O
2�
0 2
O
z
m A
3
m
m m
m m
m�����
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m 2
m m
m m
m m
2 m
m m
2 2
2 m
m m
m m
m m
z m
z z
m m
(o Z
m 7.(o
z
m
-<x-<-<�
mmmmm
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<7,-<-<-<-<-<-<7,-<-<-<7,7,7,-<-<���-<-<
�
��
�m
N W
-I -1000000000
0
0
0
(00
0
(00
(0 (0
(OO
0 �
00
A(0
0)A
0
x
W
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
N
Q
N
N 0
X
X
X
X X
X
X
a 0)
(o m
0 0
x xW
C
CCC
C
co co
co co
co co
co co
co co
r
co�
03030303
W W�
r
W
W W
r r
1�
r
W
W W
W W
W W
W
W W
Z
W W
Z
W
N
IO.
C
>K
O—Gm�--mr—
——rmrmrm
—
------y>
—0
D> D>
y>D
—�000T.
°
y
po00
y3
�
v
-
-cv
0vccXX
�0
vG�
D3
OOOOZrrrrr-----------OzzzzzzOzzz000zzzzzD-DDZZ�
mmDOm
00000mmmmmmmmmmmXmmmmmmxmmmxxxmmmmmmmi
��
�zx�D,Z
m
�
�o
mnDDDDD
a:a:a:
22:2:m��
o
m mmm
mmmmmmmmmmm2mmmmmmmm
ZmZZmmmZm�mZ
m
<MMMMM-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
-<m-<-<mmm
-<
-<-<
-<-<-<
-<
-<�
mmm
o
z
z
0101(D
0
m
w
'
'
N N
N
'
0
m
0
w
'
W N
N
x
'�����������01A
x .x
W
x
x x
x x
x m
W W
W W
0101�A01�
W
m
W N
CO)
<
N N
N N
N
00 I
N W
_ �������'�'��
N W
W W
N N
N N
N
N
N
N
00
N N
O
N N
N
N
00 0o
N N
O
�'�
N N
00
N N
N
N
O O
N
N N
O 00
N N
N
N
N N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N N
N
Iv
O
(D
W
O
<C000000(0(0(0(02(0
(a<��I��Iv
-IAAA(O
p
(a A(aA
p
(0(00�000�00000"00000<00�v
-I�
0
W'(O
p
W
��00
�(a�N(a�<'�
0
p
0
W vvv
v v
p
0vN
W vvvvv-I
V
NN
ID
V O
—
O O
O O
O 222
0
o
0w
m
u
w
w
w
ww
N
w
w0ww
m
�
A
Z0mm000000000��0�0�0�mm�mmmmmm�mmm00
m�
CO)
o
D o
m m
-•o
o 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o m
0
m o
o
m o
o
0 o
0 0-
m o
o
�00
0 o
0 0-
m m
m o
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
m o
o
m m
o 0
o 0
0 o
0 0
m m•o
m
m•o
aaaaa0000000000000
000
D
0
0)
N
O
O
OO
OO
O
O
f0
V
V
m
0)
Ol
Ol
V
0)
N
N
W W
. (T
O
A
(O
7
V]
Z
O
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
C C
C
C C
C
C C
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_
Z_ Z_
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
K Z
K K
Z Z
Z K
Z Z
Z K
Z Z
C
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000D0DD000D000D00
Z z
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x0XX000X000X00
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�m��mmm�mmm�mm
�
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000020220002000200
D
0�0000��
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDZDZZDDDZDDDZDD
m��mmmmmm��mmmmm���mmmmmm��mmmmmmmmmmmmmm�
m
mmm
mmm
mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
m
mmm
mmm
mm
0 0
0 000000
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 000000
0
0 0
0 0
01010
0
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
000
0 00
00
v
CD
0
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
W W
W W
W N
W W
W
W W
m W
m W
W W
W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W m
W W
W W
W w
W W
W W
m W
NN
W Ol
W W
W W
O W
0o r-
r�
W Ol
O (00o
0(DW-4
�ImCA
MC-9
0W
W
K)(n
NCO(OC
01(DC:
O1(n
SIC
OIA
Ln-9
0W
W
01(n
NC
0 A
O(p
A A
Oov
A A
m(J(A
A A
W
AA
N�O�Oo�mOIACN�O(OCvm�ACN�C(0
Ar
W W
W W
W C
W W
W N(n
N(nr
C:(D
(n-mN
0
i7i7i7i7i7K000
i7oKoKi7i7oo
Kxo
W o
W nnn
W nn-i00000KOOOOK
W
000KO
W
K W
C-i(7N
m
-
DDDDOm000m00mOm0000mK0
wwwww�www�ww�w�wwww��lw�w�www�ww�wwwww�wwww��w.Zrlw�w�.Zr1�wG�
0
000
00m
DDDDOm0000m
0D0m0-am-0Dm0-
IZ
OOOOOrO00rOOrOr0000r00zOz00OZ00000000r0000rz0
mmmmmDmmmDmmDmDmmmmDOmmmmmmmmmmXmmmmmDmmmmDmmOmDmmDmO;um-
OrOZrZ
OOm
m
r r
r r
r Z
r r
r Z
r r
Z r
Z r
r r
r Z
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r n
r r
r r
r Z
r r
r r
Z r
r
r Z
r r
z r-n
o
r m
m
mmmmmOmmmOmmOmOmmmmOmmmmmmmmmmm=mmmmmOmmmmOmm
m-<r
mOmmom
mm
mr-<m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
-<r
m
-<m
W W
W W
W O1
W W
W O1
W W
O1 W
O1 W
W W
W O1
�I W
O W
O W�
W
O W
(OW
W
W O1
W
W
A O
N O
O1
W O
O1 O
O (0
N N
�
x
W
X
X
X
X
X
N
a
v 0
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
XX
X
XX
(o m
ID
(n
C
(n
C
(n
C
(n
C
U)
C
r
(n
C
(n
C
U)
(n
C
U)
C
r
N_
m
DDDDOm000m00mOm0000m�0
wwwww�www�ww�w�wwww��wvwvwwwvww-iwwwww;wwww;vw�c;uc
0
000
00m
DDDDOm0000m
ODOmO
m
;u��wv
Dm0
°i
D3
OOOOOrO00rOOrOr0000rOOZOZO00Z00000000r0000rz0rOrOZrZr002
mmmmmDmmmDmmDmDmmmmDOmmmmmmmmmmXmmmmmDmmmmDmmOmDm>mOAjmm
mm
rrrrrzrrrzrrzrzrrrrz�rrrrr;rN
0rrrrrZrrrrzrr-rzrrzr-nnrr
=mm
mn
O
mmmmmOmmmOmmOmOmmmmOmmmmmmmmmmm2mmmmmOmmmmOmmm
mOmmOm
3
<����r���r��r�r����r�����������r�����r����r-<-<�r��r�
m7,
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
-<m
z
z
z
z
z
z
.Zl .Zl
.Zl .Zl
.Zl �
.Zl .Zl
.Zl .Zl
.Zl .Zl
.Zl .Zl
x A
.Zl .Zl
m o
.Zl A
o mmm(D
W A
0
m
;a
CO
0
m
0 ;a
MMMI
.Zl .Zl
0
m
0 A
��wo
.Zl w
.Zl .Zl
CD
N A
CD
.Zl �-
12
X X
CC��v0
X
0
m�
;a
��N(�,
;a A
0
m
;a 0
CD
0
m�
A 0
(P(D
w
L'
5
�- w
v
CO)
<
N
W W
W W
W N
W W
W W
W W
W W
N
W p
W W
N
W 0
N N
0 O_
N
N W
00
N W
W W
N N
N p
W N
W W
N
N p
m
W .E
W W
m
W V1
N
N tl1
N W
N
W
N
N
0
N N
tl1
Iv
m AmAmOAmAmm
Ol
-P
A
2AAm22
<<(Il<<AN(Il<�NOANO2AmD
NAA(D
00<
0
w2
20
0060
W
p
m
p
ID.
a
p
m
�
W
N
r
Q
W p
m
W
p
m
p
m
W W
r
0-
fD
A
mm
m
-n-n
-n
CO)
O
o
O
o
O
o
O O
O
o�m
O
O O
OoO
OmO
OmOmOmOmOmO
O
O
—•OOq
OmO
——•O
Dm•o
-aa
o
O
-a
o
O oZO
D o
a
a
a
a
aaa
a
a
a
D
n
m
m
m
m
m
A
A
m
A
mm
A m
m
m
m
m
-4
N
m
m
co
A
7
x
o
Z
O
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
C
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Z z
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
0 0
000000
0 0
000000
0 0
000000
0 0
00000
0
0 0
00000
0
0 000000000000000
v
m
00
0
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W W
W
v
d)(J1A
W
N
0(D
W v
d)NA
W
N
0000000000(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0
0(D
W v
d)NA
W
N
0(D
W v
d)NA
W
(O(0
N�
w
0(000-40)
0000
0000
U1
0o W
A 0000
0000
W
(p
W
W W
W W
W W
W W
(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n(n
(n (n
(n (n
(n (n
(n (n
(n W
N(n
WW
4v
v v
v v
vv
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C (n(n
C
O C
Oo O
0
(�(�(�(�(�(�
A W
N 0
0
G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�G�CCK(�K(�(�O
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDKKMC�CCCCCCCC
mpmpppppppp
�-
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmrOr00000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000xx>mDmmmmmmmm
Z
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDr-r-,
z
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDDpmpmmmmmmmm
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSzz�����������
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmppm
m
�IvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvU1
U1 U1
W U1
W W
W W
W W
W W
fl)
x
W
N
Q
N
N 0
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ID
(o m
U)
�
N
Q.
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C (n
G)CCKCKCCCCCCCC
(n
C
nK
n n
n n
n n
n n
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDKKmpmOOOOOOOO
Z
°'
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmr0r00000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000XXDmDmmmmmmmm
O)o
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDrr
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDDpmzmmmmmmmm
0
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrzz
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmppm
m
3
0
s
cn
(D
000000000o
O(O
0o0000000000o00o
Oo00vvvv
vvvvv
v
O
0
O_
W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
p
(p
A
Z 0000000m0m00m0mm0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�mmm-0-nnT
vvvvvvvv
CO)
O
D0000000-•O-•00-•O�-•o-------------------
o 0
0 0
0 o
m O
m 0
o m
O m
m O
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
m m
0) m
m m
m m
m m
o m
0
m m
-
O m
o
m 0
-o0000000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. CL
rl
0.
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
D
n
m
A
00
00
0)
V
00
(0 (0
A
(0 (0
(T V
(0 (0
N V
(0 (0
O A
0)
7
0T
o
Z
O
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
C
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Z
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
n
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
D
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
p p
p 0000
p
p p
00000
p
p p
00000
p
p p
0000
p p
p p
000000
p p
0000
p 000000000
v
CD
(D
0
w
A
W
U)
D A
A
A
(AJ1
A
A A
A A
A A
A
O W
W
W N
0 N
W
N N
N
�Iv
AAA
A
A
v�d)d)d)d)d)d)d)�d)(Jl
AAAAAAA
AAA
(J1N
AAAAA�
(Jl (Jl
(Jl (Jl
(Jl W
(00o
(All Co
Co CoW
0301A
W W
W
W W
A�O(00o
A W
W W
A
W W
d)>
W DmD
r(nAO(00o
W U)U)U)U)
-I
00
0o
(n
-40)Ln
Co vd)01A
W
NCO
(0
00-101(71A
W
N�0(000
0)(71A
W
N
0
O —
0
— —
0 0
— —
0 0
— —
0 0
N-----4
W 0
0 0
0 W
0
0 0
Co 0
0
m00mmmmmmmm_mm_m_m_m_m_m_m_mm_m_m_mm_mmmmyOOOOOOOn0nnnn0Orz'c>DDD
n
n
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
z
O
CO 0
0 0
0
S
S
0 0
0
0
0
0000000
-
0 0
0-
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
T
0 0
T T
0 0
T T
0 0
T T
0 O
-0-0-0-0
0 0
0 n
0 W
-0
W
D ����
I
-
-
mmmmmmm=mmmmmmm=mmm=mmmmm=�mmmmmmmpmmmmpmc�c�
-
- -
- -
- -
zr0000
r
r r
r z
m>>mG
(n DD
(n
T.
m
T. G
m
T. G
m
T. T.
T. T.
T. T.
T. G
m
T.T.T.
G
m
7. 7.
7. 7.
(�D-q-q-q-q-q-q-m-i--�m�Z
7. D
z--
�
(�m(�
2
-< 2
DDDD
0 m
m m
3
m m
z
z
MT.
mmm
-<-<-<
z
m
m z-<
m z
mmmmmmm
-< -<
-< -<
-< -<
-< z---
mmm
z-<-<-<-<-<
mmmmm
T
0 T
T T
T T
T T�
T
T T
T�
T
2
m T
T T
T
00
m
mmmmmmm
mmmm
T
mmm
T
mmmm
m -<
cn;ucn
0
Tr
m
x
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
N
Q
N
N 0
XXX
XXX
X
X
XXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXX
XX
XXXXXXXX
CLM
(o m
U)
U) U
N
����000�0�0�00000007,0007,000000�0000000W0000W0pp0(n0000
W
WWWWWWW
WWWW
WDDD
C()
C() C()
C()
�z
mOOmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDO00000
00
-<--<--<--------<----<-----
0000000
o()OOnn0nmmmcDDDD
0000
O
0
m
���*000
0
0
0000000
000
D3
-
��
-
mmm=m=m=mmmmmmm=mmm=mmmmm=�mmmmmmmpmmmmpmccc�
�1 �1
�1 D
�1 D
�1 D
�1 �1
�1 �1
�1 �1
�1 D
�1 �1
�1 D
mmmmmm(r,mmmmmmmnmmmmnmWWWDr-r-r-�
�1 �1
�1 �1
�1 -
r -
- -
- -
- -
m----m—zzz
0000
mrrm���m
�
nD
v
v
(�(�(�p
o
DD�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmDz�������-����-�___
�ZZ����Z�Z�Z�������Z-<-<-<Z�����TOTTTTTTT�TTTTATTTTm7TTT
m
m
m
0
0
�
�
,
, -<
-
]]
(n
(n (n
-
I I
I I
I
I]
1-<I-<
1]]
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
s
s
s
s
CO)
NN
A
XlzX
NX
NlzNXX
lzXO
C.�.
C.�.
.Z.Z
N
XI
.Z
.Z.Z.Z
UW1
AW
.Z.Z.Z
lz
.Z
.Z.Z
2.Zlz
Z3
;1
AOW
.ZANl
ANOw
.ZANl
mmn
CD
CroCroCrom
n
NC
m m
n n
m
n
A(Ap°
Np
AAANNAA
AANW
AN
AANNN
ANAONN(lANANNN
(0�o
00v0v
<
0v
0
NA_
00mm0m
_d)d)A
d)ZmN
O
-4
AAA00WAAOAOA
W
AA
(0A
W
A�
W
W W
O W
W
W
pNInW W
(p
N
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
1
O
O-
O
O-
O
O-
Z-,M
O
O-
O
O-
v
W(O(O
N
A
0000vvv0-0
0vvvvi
0
-0
0m000m00m000m-0
00000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
o 0)0
0
0
0 0
0 ozozo
DDDOD�DDDDDO
ooz
O -
0 0
000-00-000-
o m•
0 o
m•0
0 o
m•0
o m
0 0
00000
0 0
0s
0o000
.000
rl
rl
0
rl
0.0.0.E
rl rl
0.0.0.E
0.0.0.0.0.
D
n
m
0)
0 0
0-0
0
O
O
T
v v
O A
00 V
(O
00
V
00
V
00
7
0T
to
z
0
c
c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c
Z_
Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_ Z_
Z_
Z
Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z
MOOM0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
z
-<00-<0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0
moo
m0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
D
r
iDD�DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
1
mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX A
amec
RESIDENTIAL CANAL HOMEOWNER QUESTIONNAIRE
{
Residential Canal Homeowner Questionnaire
1. Homeowner Information:
Name (Optional):
Email address:
Canal Location/Home Address:
Telephone #:
2. What issues or concerns do you have with the water quality of your canal?
o Seaweed/flotsam
o Unclear water
o Bad odor
o Fish kills
o Do you swim in your canal: Yes No
o List other
3. Are there certain conditions or times of the year when the water quality in your
canal is worse (such as a certain wind direction or a seasonal influence)? Please
specify:
4. Is there, or has there been, any treatment systems associated with your canal?
o Yes
►•
5. If yes to #4, please indicate the type of canal treatment system:
o Aerators
o Weed gates or bubble curtains
o Culverts
o List other
6. If yes to #4, is the system still operational?
o Yes
o No , please specify why not:
Is the system effective?
o Yes
o No , please specify why not:
Comment:
7. Do you think your canal needs additional water quality improvement?
o Yes
Comment:
8. Would you be willing to contribute to the cost to install a water quality
improvement system?
o Yes
o No
Comment:
9. Is there a Homeowner Association or other organization in your neighborhood
that may be willing to manage and pay for the operation and maintenance of a
water quality improvement system?
o No
o Yes
Name of Association:
Name of President:
Phone:
Email address:
Comment:
Return to: Rhonda Haag, faa-rhonda{onroecount�r-fl.e�orr, telephone (305) 453-8774
Canal Management Master Plan, Monroe County, Florida+`
Background
In November 2012, Monroe County, in association with AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.,
was awarded an EPA grant to complete a Canal Management Master Plan for the entire Keys.
The effort is underway and is scheduled for completion by September 2013. The management
plan will prioritize the water quality problems in all of the Keys canals and provide
recommendations for appropriate remedial measures for each canal. The Master Plan will
be a t ool for all Keys managers to assist in planning and budg eting for canal water quality
improvements.
You can assist in the effort by completing the attached questionnaire.
Please return the attached questionnaire to:
Rhonda Haag
Sustainability Program Manager
Monroe County, Government and Cultural Center
102050 Overseas Highway, Ste. 212
Key Largo, FL 33037
Bus: (305) 453-8774
Cell: (305) 395-9928
Law -R¥,la iioeri, -. o
If desired, contact your County Commissioners about this program:
David Rice
Board of County Commissioners
District Four
Marathon Airport Terminal
9400 Overseas Hwy, Suite 210
Marathon, FL 33050
Phone: 305-289-6000
boccdis4monroecount�-fl. Gov
Heather Carruthers
Board of County Commissioners
District Three/Mayor Pro Tern
500 Whitehead Street, Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: 305-292-3430
boccdis3{�monroecount�-fl.�ov
Danny Kolhage
Board of County Commissioners
District One
530 Whitehead Street; Suite 102
Key West, FL 33040
Phone: 305-292-3440
boccdisl C�monroecount�-fl.c�ov
George Neugent
Board of County Commissioners
District Two/Mayor
25 Ships Way
Big Pine Key, FL 33043
Phone: 305-872-1678
boccdis25monroecount�-fl. c�ov
Sylvia Murphy
Board of County Commissioners
District Five Commissioner
Murray Nelson Center
102050 O/S Highway, Suite 234
Key Largo, FL 33037
Phone: 305-453-8787
boccdis5(rd)monroeco1 1nt%-fl.nov
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX B
amec
GLOSSARY OF CANAL ATTRIBUTES INCLUDED IN
CMMP DATABASE
0
5
r0
a
fD m a
3
m
v
O
oo
0
0
D F
O
oo
g
D
-o
°
-
<—
m
<—
m
m
CL
n
CLm
m
°
<
(n
CL
m
m
°
m
I—
o
c
Z
T.
m
m
Z
CL
c
m
m
m
m
m
x
ro
CCD
�.
m
0
mCD
CD
n
O
C
0
`G
m 0
o CD
0
Q
m
0IL0
Q
Q
Q
Q
o
o
Q
Q
C
U)
m o V5' D
CL
° D
CL D
v
N
m—
m
°m
Em
mmm
C
m
CD
m
m
� mCD
—-
0
(D
C tll
m
0
m
M N
m
m N
mm
;
O N
m m
O_ N
° E
m
0
m
N
�'
0 M � 0
o m
(n �
..
m
C
n
co
0
m Q Oo - °-
m
O N
O
X
o' °
°- m
(n°
m°
m
°
m
m m
m
s
m
s
m
s
m
m m m
o m Q o°
= N
0
cc
= m
m m
m
° m
m
m
�'
5' m
°
X m
°
m
°
m
m
0
m
0
4.(C Q m
o o
�.
N N
tl1
(n N
tl1
N
Q
m
m
.m..CD
S
w W W 0
Q
m
m
m
°
�'
�'
m
o
D m o m cm
X
0
0
0
0
Cc o
0
0
0
o
D_ N—
°-
(n
0_
0_
0_
o m
Eo
m
0
m
0
O
Em
o
o
m
m
m
' -o O o
Q�mog
0
s
CD
E
E
o:
m o:
o:
CL
Q
Q
v'
m m m
°
m
N
m
CD
m
m
m
m
� m
m
m
m
m
m
°
<
o
0
o
m Q—
Q Z
°
m
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
S
S
m
CD N m
o_ (D O
o
m
O
S
m
S
m
S
m
S
m
S
m
ry
0
0
CL
CD N CD
m
m
m
O
0
0
°
O
0
CD
m
C:C
CO
(n
°°
CD m
m
�' � (D O
m
CL__
°—
°
_
°—
°—
° m
m <
m s m
°
0-
m
°
m
m
m
m
0
0'
O
°<
O
�.
O
�.
O
—
N'
m CLm
tl1 O 0.
0
m
X
D
C m o
m m D
co D o
m m D
(Q < O
(n
C S
m D
D o
s� D
o
�'
S
° a C p D
O U) m -o
° a C p D
° U% m,
m D
m -o
O
m
D- D
0 0
CO)
0
N'
cQ m
0
O w w
O O m�
W
0
-0
p °- m
0°
.m..
0 w
(D
CD
0 Q C°
C Q C°
0 °.
co
CD°
c
0
0
m m m
0< D
Q D m
O O
Q cQ m
cD
'< O
N
(n m m
m °
x 91
X
C G
v (D
C G
� (D
o .-0..
0
m m
�
n
N
'Z 0
(Q
o l2
n
N
Q .0.. l2
...
O
O N N
0
0 N= N CD
O
=
91 0
o
.0..
0.
O
(D
_ m
tll
m m
N
m m
0D 0 0
^.
m ��
m
� 0
m
0 cD tll
m
o
0 CD
m tll m m
0 0
0 N m (D
Q Q
m
m O
Q
� (D
tll
p Q m
° N
Q m
91 tll
0
m
0
m O o
�� 0
Q m tll
m 0 0
z°
m C
o -^ °:
0 0 0 Q�
o -^ °:
O m m Q�
< CD
°:
Q x
::
o
CD
3
N m
O
m �_ °
0-m
m o m
0
m
m m
Co m' m
E m
m
°�
O'
Q°
m
s
° m
a
0
0
0
(� °
.G o 0
tl °
.G O (D
0 °
m
O
0 (D
ry Q
O ID
Q Q
m 0
0 °- C
o
(D CL
o S C
O
cc
N 0
mn
(p l2
aLa
0
m
C
m m
N
m
0
m°
0
S
° m
X tll
m m
m CD N
m
�. m
O O
S
�, m
S m O O (n
C
N T
0
0 0
0
o
v N o
cp
N RL o
0'
C (D o
CL N
�D =Z o
_
m m
n m
(n
0 (n C l2
N m
O N cn
Cc
m O
CD
m
0_
CD N
N
O
Q
CD j
C
X-0 CCD N
X-0 CCD N
CD
m Q
(D
Q
CD
° cQ o:
� y o:
� ° o:
m
FL CL
CL
m
(n
� 0, � �
� � m � �
�
m o
�
_
o_ m m
O I- m
O D m
Q
o m
°
m m
N° m
0
_—
m m
m °- X m Q
m m
m °- X m Q
m
is
0
Q'
0
n
T.
Q
Q
0 0
CD
0 0 O
C c
0 11 O
C m
Q O
m
N
O
0�
N O�
N
D
°-
o O p 0 O
j 0� 0 tl1
o O p C O
0� (D m
N
Q o
S O
(Q
x
n
0
.ri v
m°
.m.. m
N O m
p
N 0 0 0 '6
m n Q O_ -o
O
cD m
o
O
n
m O
N 2 X•
X
CD
X
`Z w 2
y'
2 m 0
2 m°
C
0
CD
(p
C
N
2
E 0
6,
CD
0 0
O
N m m N
(n m m 0 N
N
=
CD
m o
Q O
m
�°
0
m �'
-. °
m C
o_
O N Q
m
m m C°
-o m
m m n °
-o m
m (n
m
O
m
U'
m m O
�;
m
m
°
0
m o
tl1 Z
s
m
m
Q< m m
m
O_ G m m
0
m
(n
w
s�
-0
X v
o °,0
X
0-
E m
o<
m
CD_
�'
m
�' 0- o m
sOm -6
° 0 °: 0
sOm
0�
CD0,m
s
m
0
0
°-
„m,.
�_`
0 0
C- E
O
2 N
Q;
rE S
_<
m l2
0 m
o-
0 N S°
0
so
(D p)
CD
N
Cc
N
0
x=
X cD
(QD
Q O
5'
(QD G
CD
ry
N
2
0
m 0
N
l2 0 0_
D
m
O (Q
o �D o 0
0 - m 0
W C (Q
m 0 0
� = 0
O
O
O
w
CD
Z
0' o
—
N 0
.0..
G
cQ
m S 0
m C .�.:
(n ^. m
I
In CLCD
m
Q
m m
D°
10 �
CD m E
CD
O
(n CL m
CD
m CL m°
m
m v
0
CL
m y
p
CD
-0
o o Q
l2
°
0
m °O °= m
C
m m
0 <
<
m m
�. 0
m
cD
(0
o Q
v m
CL
`G cD
n
C
o° mn
0 0
m m m
m T. N m
m
m°
m
o
Q Q
°
nCD
m o
m
�'
o'
Q ,° m
m 0 0= 0_
m m o
l< s
T.
°
CD
(Q
m 0'
y 0
°
m 0
(Q
°
O
x
C
_.
91 (�D
0 �. m .m..
-
91
N cSD
Q
m 0
s Z
m 3
s
m m
m
s
2<°
0
°
.mS..
m co m o
m° -°
D
m
Q
0 N
0
N (Q
m
0 0 0 0
0 tl1 O
�'
0 Q
Q
°
s°
X
o
(� m
m
O
O
O s o o
y=
(
CD
0-°
=
cx
m
m m
-
m°
m om°
°
m
s
'-
m �
Q Q
�
-
CD
Qm'
Q Q
m
m Q
N
Q
s
o
O
m
o
G�CL
m
o
O 7
r 0 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
)<
a
fD m a
S
0
v
0
U)
D
D
0
Z
Z
D
v
r-
C
O
m
O
O
co
0o m
m
m
g'
m
m
CD
m
I�
I�
CD
0 I�
Im
Im
Im
o
to
to
I�
m
=
Iv
c
o
I�
mI
I0
Q
m
m
N
0
�mm
K
0
o
,
I
v
�
o22
ccv
Z
o
o'
°
�(
CD
�Lri0
m
o
m
m'�2ro
v
'Z D�
-0
0
m
�
o_
OD
m
o Do
�o
m
KN
0
0 m
N'Zv
< o�.s�
m
v
m
s� s
D
CD
0
Uo
<
ccDD cn
om°
91 CD
Q
m
Q CD D
2 m
w
n' C
m °-
(D
N (�
-0 m
D m
D x.
D
(Q
�=
�
N
N C E 0
O.
O� _,
E S N
�
N
m<
N
° v
O
x
v
< s
�' °L
m Q
G Q
G
G
m CD
° m
m °-
o
m
N.
o
Q
Q m
(n
2 C
Q C
s m �'
°
°- a
a m
D m
0
0
m o
m O
°
O m s
m
v
m
m m
s
'.
O
_
m
m
m
m -. m
'` m =.
m
m o: m
°
S' ?
°
m m
O m
aD
co m
ao m
M
s
m
m
o m°
o
°° m
cQ Q
m
o
CD
Q,°
m
Q�
Z
mm
3
ID
m
m
°
<
m
m
<
<Qm
M
o
in m
m
m
°
ID
so
cQ
m
°
°Q
o
o
Q°
o'
o v
o
m
N m' cQ
m
m
N S
m
°(n
°
°
0
Q
m °
°
S° m
0 M
CD
m
m
° m
�. m
m
ro °
o
o
_�
°
cc
m
m m
m m
o
m
m 2
Co
m o
0
o
o
m
o
m -0
v°
m°
°-'
m Q
�.
Q
s
N
o �.o
=
m 5
Q
n
Q
o
o m
s
O
m
CD
< C<
m m
m
n m m
CD
s<
m'
m
I
N N
m
n
x
Q CL
CD
s
m
m.
u
m
�'
-
a
CL
m
W
m' m
Q
o
m m
(n
s °
=
2
cc m
<
m
m
m
°
m m
o cc
m m m
m
m
m
91
Q
N °
= (n
m°
Q
S m
m
O S
°
m
C
N
cp
°
o o s
5
S O
C
Z m CC
CD°
= m
°_
.C..
_
O_
O
0
CD
m
�'
Q
m
O
N
N
m m°
p
O
O
^"
O
^"
Q
<
m
O
Q m
A m (n
m S
j m
(A
(Q
(n N .-.
m
Q
m O (n
m
(D
O
O
m
�
N N
N OQ
Z
N
N D
w
(D'
�.
� m
�.
Q
m s
C Q
S
m
N
m
C
�'
C
m
m
m
m
a (Q'
m
m
<
N
—
O
Q
O
�'
(Q
.�..
- N
(D N N
N
O
O
m
N
_—
D
CD
D
(D
CD
C
(A
CD—
, O
(D (D
(D
N O S
(D O
(D'
N S
m
tl1
°_ O m
W
O
.m..
—
C_
�'
N Q
O
°
Q m
2
o m
°
tl
o
�.
(D
Q
m
o
m
E
D
0 s
�
CD
W 91
CD
CD
<.
=
°^
N
S
m
Q
cn
m
(n
�'
m
m
�'
N=
m
0��
m
sX �-o
m -o
m < Wm
Wm
Wm
W�
�� o m
m m
CL
m m
DnOicQ'nOi
I
CL m m
cQ'nOi
CO)
cQ
°�0
a:
CD N`G
cc `<(p
l<
l<m
- °
m-o'o
QC
QC
r
C
-
N'�
QC
-
N'�
m
m
m
m m
m
v m
m
m
Co m
Q
m Q
m m CD
m E
O CD
m E
O CD
m E<
O
Q -. - m
N S m
m m
�
m m
(A
� v
m m
QCD
M m
m m
Q
m
CD
m
m
m
m
m
m
O
m
m
O
m
C
° m
O
�' O- (D
M
R
.m.
�
-
CD
C `G O Q
'D D-°
CD
C
C E
O Q
O Q
CD
Q
°
(n
m m
U m �'
o-< m
0
m m
W
m m
m m
S `< (n <
Q m
T. m
T. m
ii C
D m
N C
o m
T. m
N C
o m
m
m
m
-
m x o
s °
Q
Q
Q
m y
m�
° m°
mz m
m
mz m
m �'
=
° m
mz m
S.
0
N
- m
m 0
0
0
Q
°
N C 2 O (D
Q
C
C
N Q
N
C
s
N
O
Q
CD m
m y O
W m° D<
<
< D
m m s
m°
m°
Ds
sm
?O
0
o m
Q _
Q
0 m o
s
s
s
cQ'm
m 3
Q
Q
Q
m
o
m
m
m m s m
m m
m m
m m
m
6 m°
n`
a
W-
D°
I
D
Q
S m v.
m° m m
y m
y m
y m°
o mz m
°_
m
. CD
m
°-
m
s
m G 1
< rm
m S m°
o
m°
m o
m°
m o
m
m o'
m
0 o m Q
m
m
m
m
rn m
O0
O
m
m
O
m
�' O
O
CD
o m S m°
< .�
m°
m
m°
m
m
m
N.o m ° CD
m o cQ m
o'ao'�
�' o
�' o
�
0
�
.-
�' o
(n
0
CD
o
m 7.
�
o: ° o m
�
m
�
m
�
m
00 m o S�
����
m
° m
o
m�
0
C Q
o
° C v
N
Q X 3 Q
m Q
m Q
m Q
C v v
o
m s
m s
Q
o
C
m s
m
m �'
m
�' �'
�' �'
�' �'
° -e C
CD
m
m
IS
m
m
m
`°
m
m m a`
m o
X o
X o
X o
°- m u
m o
n o
m
m o
m
m m
o:s�
CD
CD
'o
wm_WCD
WCD
W°
0
m
o
m m m
0 °
m v m
°
Q
m
Q
m
�
m
Q
m
m
N
m
v s
D N
C
C
C
C
cD o E
3 m
m
m
0
m
w
=
m
O 0
< m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
o m
m O N
m
m
G�
(n
m
C
m
m
C
co
(p
— M
v Q
Q
Q
Q
N S S O m
m`°
S
S
S
m
° m
m
m
m
m
m
o Co
° _�
�s2
S'o'cD
cD
m
m
o p
-0
m°
mz
mz
mz
mz
m m m
m m o
�.
�.
m
m
�.
m
v
m
Q
Q° °
m
o
m
o
m
m
m
o
m
m
o
<
m
m
m
o o-
m
<
m
E
m<
E
o m m
m m E m
a
o
o
o
o
o
Q
m
S s
m
m
X
°
m m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
CL
CD
m
CD
CD
CD
CL
CD
CL
N
m
O N
n
CD
C
C
.0.. `� Q (Q
CD
CD
S
N
C
m
O
ID
m<° s
O
O
E
N
O
N
(D
Q
Q
O
m cQ C
mCD
N
C
C
O N 9 Q
CD
C
CD
C
C
Q
N
s
CD
N
E
9
m
m
o' m
m
CL -o
m
N' O
m
N
N
N
CD
-0
m
(D
X
N
S
m
m
s
S
N
m m
Q
m
Q
m
Q
D
m
Q
D
O 7
O 0
r
X
)<
fD m a
3
2
O
(n
z
m
v
n
D
v
K
v
cn
v
D
p
°
m
0
CD
m
F
m
m
CLCD
CD
m
mCD
m
p
n
Q
0
I—
m
Q
m
Z
�'
0
0
c
c
CD
I
2
CD
y
m
o
°
m
-
m
O
=
CD
`D
o
0
m
CL
o_
°
m
o
o'
°
O
_.
0
v
m 0_
< m
O
CD<
s D s?°
N
z
m
(D O_
v
m
5
m m 0.
0
C
0
m
N v
CD°
m
z
v
D
N n
O (D
O
M
O .
O
W 0
n' n' N
C
'2
'� N
0 0
(D NID n'
O_ 0
�'
0
N
Z. n
N
N
n
CD .�..
(D
Nc'
Q
.�..
O
O
O
N. N CD
`< N
91 O
(D
O
N
(D
.0..
.�..
l2 ° (D
o
0
D
o (D
(D .0..
91
D
N
D
0
O
n
(D O
(Q
O
O
O 0
0
O
91 O
O_
91
(�
(Q
O
0
O
O
.�
0
(D
O_
�_ (D
'6
O (�D
N
V1
CD O n
l2 (D
(ND
<
(D Z
O
O
(Q (D
p (D (D
.N..
91 (D
(D
91
�.
(D
CL
D
(Q (D O
(D
(D O 0=
(D O
O
O H
O
E
Q
N
O
O
.�.. 0
(D
91
CD
91 (D
< N —CD
O
N
(n
tl1
O_
(D
0
O_
91
O �
N V1
m
(D
N
N
O '6
-n
°
O_
2l
ry
tl1
(D
(D
(D
0
= (D
(D M
l2
n
O .<
'6 O
-O
(D
(�
91
0
(p
n
(D
(D
O_ .n..
Z
O
(�
l2
(�
(Q
o
O_ S
N
(D
m
0
N ry
91
O
N
l2
(D
O 0
(n
.�..
N
(D
°
l2
r2
Q.
(D
N
O
G O
N
(D
°_
rE CD
m
ry
CD
(OD
(D
O
0
C
0 <
O 0
0
(D
0
.�.,
(D (SD
-0�
O
CD
N
C
O 0 C
C
CL
Zl
CD
x
(D (D
N
-O'
(D
0
tl1
^.
O C w
l2 O_
91
=
O
r2
<
(D 0 O
(D
O
(D
Q
(D
O
O
M
(D (CD
CL
m
N
O
C
N
O
O-
(D
,<
CD
(Mn-0
(D
(D
.0..
(D
O
CD O
O
CD
Q
Q O
, w O
v
'6 CD
vN
CD CD'6
vN
CD-0
v
CDN
CL
N
(n v0
-° CD
O_ ��
°-m
D�
CD CD
�° ��
CDN S-
DDc
so
-o
� D�
-'
s0
D(n
O
=.m
CD
=.m
CD
=.m
��
=.m
m
QQm
0
m
0
m
0
o C
�0_
c
°-
�.
�.
0 m
a m
g g Q
m�
OCD Q
m
m
m
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD 0
0
w
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
91
(D
O
M 0. 0
10�
�c �c
Z
m
m
CD m °
v m
0-0
0cc
v m
m
(o
91
91
91
91
O
(n
91
O .�.. CD
9
O �c
N Q
�.
.�..
.N..
(D (D
(D (D
(D (D
(D (D
O (D
°-
(D (D
V1 O
_
N
N
0 �' Q
(D
O_
C �'
O Q
�D
O
O
.�.. N
O
O
Q
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N v
N
00
0
° (n O
C'<'o
j
0 0 0
=
a C
0
O_ OLO
W
O_
W
O_
W
O_
W
O_
-.! C
O
W
O_
0 O O'
C N
m (D 91
O
O_
(D
O O
O -p °
(D
�
O
� O
(D
r2
(D p
O O
i
Q
Q
Q
Q
O O
O
c
(nN
6-0 O
(D
l2
(D
O C
(EL
(D D
T.
CD
W
CD
CD
m
m
CD
m s
(D
CD
o r 0
v O 0_
° m'
s= m
<
m
m
0 <
m
m
m CD
0
m
m
��
m
m
O
O_
m
O
O_
m
O
O_
m
O
O_
N
p
v
O
CL
O O
O
oCD
Q
N
O ry
N
O
tl1
O N
O
W
S.
C
(D' O.
Q O'
(D (D
0 C
Z
CD (ND
O_
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O_
o
OLn.
O� O
EL
n O
CD
E CL
0
O O. Q
CD
D
C
CD .�..
(D
C p nG
91 O
(D
(D
'6
91
91
91
91
91
(n
91
W p' 0
N
O'
(Q
— Q
G
N
(n
(D (�
S C
m
(p
m O
n .
CL
CL
CL
CLO
Q
v
O (D S
0 (D
O
O
-O
O
(D N
'O (D
'6
O
O Q
(A
w O X
<
(D S
<
CL
S p
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D
(D C W
C
(D N
-
(D
O_
n O
'6
O
O_
.�..
O' (D
C
C
C
C
O
C
-O
< v
(D
.0..
(D O
(D (Q
O (p
O'
G
.-
(D
0
O'
0 0
CL
m
m
m
S.
0
m
-°o v
D m s
n 0 0
O D
s
CD
0
0
s
m
0 m
m
CD
0_
m
0_
m
0_
m
0_
-a
°
ID
0_
O(n
o_ o_
m
G� o_ <
U) N:
0 0
m
v
m 0
CD 0
v
m
0_m
v m
CL
o_
o_
o_
0_
o D
s
O
N O_
m
v
O_ O
(D
-0
n 7
m
0
m
< 0
CD m
CD
y
°
Q
m
m 0
°-
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
o
m
m
T. °-
0 0
m
o m'
m
(D
0 0
0
m
n
r
m
CD ='
o
3 0-
m
n
<
m
n
m
m
0'
m
0'
m
�'
m
m
�'
0
o
3
`o_'
a
0
m m
m'
O
c
(Q
(Q
(Q
(Q
(°
°- z
m 0
m'
m
m
m
m
m
< m
s
CD
CDCD
0
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
APPENDIX C
amec
POOR WATER QUALITY RANKING SHEETS
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
s
F
3
F
C3
3
F
FEr
oo
_
F
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
nF
s 3
3
w FcM
o
D
3
3
3
D
3
� 3
3
6
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
o
w
m
w
w
w
o
w
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
-
3
3
3
3 D
3
3
? o
£
F
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
m
w
n
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
a
w
m
m
N
w
w
w
3
3
£
s
3
�
-
3
3
£
6
y
_
3
w
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
£
3
3
0
o
F o
3 „
on
_
3
£
6 £
-
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
� 3 3
3
F
-
3
3
3
£
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
m
w
m
a
p1
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
-
-
-
O
3
3 w
a
w
w
F
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3 a
3
-
3
F v
y
� 3
3
�
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
on
3 £
0 3
3
3
-
m
O
3
F n
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3 n
3
O
3
3
3
-
F
A
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
D
53
3
on
F
3
3
3
-
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
D
3
3
on
3
-
3 �
O
3
£
3
3 3
_
-
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
o
D
53
3
3
3
3
y
�
_
a
O
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
o
D
53
3
on
3
43
y
�
—
a
O
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
O
3
'3
"
"
£
a
-
F
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
a
a
w
w
o
wo
D
3
3
3
O
3
=
3
3
_
3
3
O
3
3
-
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
w
w
w
w
o
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
3 3
_
-
£
O
3
2 s
ir
y
y
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
w
w
.•
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3 3 w
-
O
3
3
3
'3
3
3
3
3
a
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
3 365
c
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
3
y
3
3
£
3
3
-
O
3
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
.i
.•
w
w
.•
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
3 w
_
=
£
_
3
3
3
=
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
-
_
3
O
3
a
£
3
v
� 3
N
ol
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
3
j
a
3
a
-
y
3
3
O
3
3
-
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
F
n
3
j
a
3
a
a
-
y
o
3
3
O
3
o
3
-
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
m
m
a
w
o
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
3 3
3 w
a 9
O
3
F
s
£
3
0
j 3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
m
w
w
a
p1
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
_
3
3
"
a 3
3
3
�
w
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
3
j
a
3
a
-
y
3
3
O
3
3
-
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3 a
3
3
-
3
3
3
3
3
£
,£
-
3
3
w
y
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
o
o
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
£
a £
3
3
3
£
A 3
3
'3
_
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
g
3
O
3
£ w
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
s o
3
3
"
£ar3
3
3
3
£
w
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
x
3
D
3
53
3
3
3
3
3
=
_
_
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
_
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
L Er
3 3
3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F o'
F
F
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
zl
C3
CD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
Er
o o
x
3
D
3
53
3
F
3
ol
-
3
3
-
O
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
� 3 3
3
z
-
�
3
a n
g o
6£
£
3 3
3 3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
� 3 3
3
z
j
=
�
-
3
5 0
3 3
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
D
S
3
9
�
on
3
�
2
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
3
x
3
�
-
3
£
-
P y
�
£ o
w
y
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
m
=
3
a v
£
5
on
3
3
y
3
3 3
£
—
—
__
6
£ o
w
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
�
3
a v
£
5
on
3
3
y
3
3 3
£
—
—
6
£ o
F
2 a
s
m
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
p1
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
-
-
_
O
3
F
2
£
3
a
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
a
w
w
o
o
p1
w° x
3
D
3
3
3
_
-
O
3
2 �
£
3
£
_
a v
'3
£ w
-
a
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
p1
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
-
-
_
O
3
F
2
£
3
a
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
o
o
p1
x
3
D
3
3
3
_
-
O
3
F
2
£
3
a
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
-
F
O
3
y
3
3
3
=
-
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
-
O
3
£
£
3
3 3
3
=
-
a v
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
_
3
N
3
3
3
3
3
w
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
O
3
�
3
^
3
m
3
3
3
y
3 3
3
3
3
2 �
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n 3
m
0 3
3
o
3
3
- n 3
-
Er
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
o
a
a
p1
o
wo
D
3
3
O
a
a 3
�
3
s £
o^
F
2
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
�
O
-
£
3
o
-
F
on
£
3
3 3
_
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
a
w
o
o
wo
D
3
3
3
D
o
3
3
-
3
3
on
3
o
�
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
w
a
a
w
o
wo
D
3
3
F
al
on
3
3 3
-
o
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
o
w
w
o
o
p1
w° x
3
D
3
3
3
D
Er
�
3
O
3
3 a
-
£
-
F
on
3
3
£
m
3
0
3
'3
3
w
-
-
3
a
a v
A
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
o
o
w
w
o
o
p1
w° x
3
D
3
3
3
�
3
O
3
£ 3
3 a
£
� v
3 a
£
3
3
y
£
3
3
3
3
w
-
_
-
a
s
- F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
N
w
a
w
o
o
wo
D
3
3
3
�
c
� v
3
P
3
a
3
3M
Er
o.
Er
5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
N
w
a
w
o
o
wo
o
o
D
o
3
F
o
So
3
£ s
�
3
So
-
F
on
y
3
�
P
3
a
3
3M
Er
o.
Er
5D
F
3
o
32
3
n 3
m
3
o
Er
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
o o
x
o
3
D
o
3
3
3
O
o
o
oSo
D
3
Fw
3
3
3
� -
"
3
3
3 3
2
0
3M
Er
o. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
o
D
o
3
3
O
o
o
o
So
So
9
£
£ _
£
�
3
m
3
on
3
al
3
o
3
3 3
2 m
-
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
-
F
3
a
0
O
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
£
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
-
F
3
3
j
£
3
o
F
on
3
�
3
_
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
3
y
3
3
_
3
-
3
6
3
d e
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
F
3
£
�
0
v
N £
£
£
3
£
3
m
3
N
3
m 3
m £
2 m
-
m
�
F
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
0
v
F
=
3
3
on
3
_
3 3
-
o
3
a
m
-
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
n
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
v
a 3
0
3
3
-
F
3
3 3
-
_
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
O
3
_
F
3
-
3
0
9
F
£
3n
3
s £
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
0
a 3
3 0
3
£
3
3
y
3 3
3
-
S £
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
D
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
£ 3
a 3
£
v
n
3
2
3
£
F
3M
Er
o. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
°
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
o o
x
o
3
D
o
3
3
F
o
O
3
3
So
3
3
3
^ 3
on
3
3M
Er
o.
Er
5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
m
m
w
w
o
wo
o
o
x
o
3
D
o
3
3
O
o 3
o
3
So
-
3
�
£
3
F
3
3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
w
w
w
w
o
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
_
3
-
3 °
3
3
a 3
3
<
a
£
3
m
3ol
3
\
_
�
3M
Er
o. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
D F
_
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
n 3
F
A
o
49 F
3
o
E
a
o
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
o
o
x
a
o f
F
o
3
3
f
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
o o
x
o
3
D
o
3
3
F
o
on
3
So
3 3
3 3
3
3
_
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
N
v
3
F
3
3 °
3 3
_
3
3
3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
3
a
_
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
a
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
-
3
3
3 s 3
3
3
�
w
v 3
w
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
a
o
a
wo
D
3
3
F
1°
3
_
^ 3 a
m
£
F
3
3
3
6 e
3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
o
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
3
£
3
£ 6
s
3
a
a 2
3
� s
3
3 3
F e
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
F
3
-
3
-
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
F
R
-
£
3
a v
3
on
3
3
3
£
a
A
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
£ 3
3
F
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
F
3
-
3
-
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
F
3
-
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
F
3
-
£
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
on
3
F
3
3
3 3
a
3
�
3
s
£
a
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
w
o
a
w
w
o
wo
D
3
3
F
O
3
£ w
3
3 �
3
on
3
s £
m
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
-
3
a
�
3
30
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
a n
°
3
—
m
30
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
on
a
—
-
o
2
-
3
O
3
—
a
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
o
w
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
F 3
£
A 3
on
3
2 a
g 3
3
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
o
w
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
a
3
m
2 a
g 3
3
a n
3
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
a
w
w
m
w
w
o
w
O
3
O
6 3
F
on
� 3
o a
3 a
—
3w
N
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
� �
O
i
3
3
F
on
a
3 3
3
? �
m
w
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
£
n
3
£
3
3 3
m
3 0
0
£
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
°
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
o
a
o
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
-
£
on
3
3
3
2 m
O
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
� 3 3
3
z
on
3 w
n F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
w
w
w
w
w
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
a
w
w
m
w
w
w
w
O
3
£
_
3
�
-
3
3
£ a
q a v
3 w
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
—
3
O
on
3
3 £
o
�
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
�
3
-
6
F
on
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
^
3
-
£
3
3
V
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n 3
m
0 3
3
o
3
3
- n 3
-
Er
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
Er
Er
3
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
.i
w
w
.•
w
o
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
�
_
3
n
y
� d
y 3
3
q
3 3
3
s£
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
.i
m
w
"
p1
••
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
�
3
F
y
3
3
3
o
s m
-
£
3
Po
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
O
F 3
3
-
5
on
3 3
6 ?
" 3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
O
3
—
F
3 3
w
a 3
0
—
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
3 3
6 S
a 3
w
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
6 S
a 3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
6 S
a 3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
6 S
a 3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
3 3
6 ?
" 3
w
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
3 3
6 S
a 3
w
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
3 3
6 S
a 3
w
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
O
F 3
3
� v
5
on
3 3
6 S
a 3
w
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
s 3
_
F
-
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
-
3
3
£
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
a
w
N
m
N
w
w
w
O
3
0
O
3
on
y
3
3 3
m
3
2 ?
a 3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
s 3
F
-
3
3 a
x
2 a
=
-
=
v
3
3
3
3
£
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
a
w
N
m
N
w
w
w
O
3
0
O
3
on
y
3
3 3
m
3
2 ?
a 3
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
°
n3
n
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
s 3
_
F
-
3 a
2
°
0',
3
r•
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
3
3
s 3
F
=
3
a
3
'm
£
v
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
o
—
O
3
y
3
a 3
m
3
3
i
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
a
o
3
y
3
m
3
��
3
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
n3
no
3a
z:.
F
3
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
.i
w
.i
.•
w
"
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
F
3
-
O
v
3
£
3
3
m
2 3 s
�
£ N
_
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
D
OL
F
3
a
3 3ir
g
3
n
3 3
o.
5D
F
3
o
0 3
3
3
- n
L Er
3 3
3
D F
_ F c�"'
s3
O
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
F
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
O F
F
O
3
3
F
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
s 3
3
w F
x
3
D
3
53
3
O
oo
3
-
£
3
3
-
3
3
�
o. 5D
F
3
o
0 3
3
3
- n
L Er
3 3
3
D F
_ F c�"'
s3
O
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
F
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
3 365
x
a
Er
O F
F
O
3
3
F
o
F
3
s
3
F
F
_
F
s 3
3
w F
.i
w
w
w
a
p1
w
x
3
D
3
53
3
oo
m
3
3
3
on
3 3
_
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
3
o O
3
£
£
3
3 3
-
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
D
3
3
F
3
o O
3
£
£
3
3 3
-
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
v O
3 00
F
3 3
-
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
3
v O
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
D
3
3
F
O
3
-
-
3
3
£
O
m 3
3
i
3
3
-
�
3
N
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Er E3
O
3
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n3
n
no
3a
z..
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
v O
�
3
-
F
-
F
£
g
_
3
3
3 3
3
3
_
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
D
3
3
F
O
3
v O
�
3
-
F
-
F
£
° g
3
3
3
3
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o
.i
w
w
w
o
o
p1
x
3
D
3
3
3
,3
3
a
-
-
s £
-
m
O
on
o £
3 3
c 3
j
=
3 £
3
�
F
Er
oM
. 5D
F
3
o
32
Er 3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
.i
w
w
p1
n
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
�
O
In
on
'3
£
3
A
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
.i
w
w
p1
n
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
£
o
3 £
0
O
3
a
j o
on
�£
w
3
o£
a 3 a
v 3
3
£
-
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
-
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
o o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
n
3 m
3 a
3 6
m 3
3 -
_
F
Er
oM
Er
. 5D
F
3
o
32
3
n
m
3
o
3
Er
0 3
3
3
- n 3
-
s 3
m
3
F
—
3 .-,
Er L3
3 3
lw
o
D
v
F
Er
Er
3
D F
3
F
0
�.
49 F
3
o
E
a
Eo 3
-
Er-
_
o
n
F
3
s
3
F
F
oo
_
FCD
F 3
3
zl
v
3°O
3
zl
nF
s 3
3
w F
p
Er
zl
a
w
.i
w
w
p1
n
wo
o
x
3
D
3
3
3
F
O
3
j a
3
O
3
_
3 £
o
a
6
3£
w
3
3 a
v 3
3
3
3 £
£
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Project Number 6783-12-2465
September 20, 2013
ATTACHED CD
amec
GOOGLE EARTH PRO CANAL LAYER
GIS SHAPE FILES
CANAL ATTRIBUTE TABLE (EXCEL)
ARCGIS MAP FILE
amec-
Monroe County
Canal Management Master Plan (CMMP)
Phase 1 Summary Report
r
Nh
iw t , �CIW'A
z�qy
Prepared by:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure
Prepared for:
Monroe County
and the
WQPP Steering Committee and Canal Subcommittee
June 21, 2012
A*,
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction..............................................................................................................................
4
Task 1.1 Summary of available information..........................................................................
6
Task 1.2. Data deficiencies in the project geodatabase......................................................25
Task 1.3. CMMP objectives....................................................................................................25
Task 3. Management goals for priority issues.....................................................................27
Task 4. Priority sites for restoration.....................................................................................28
Task 5. Initial short-list of restoration projects....................................................................36
Task 6. Adaptive management process...............................................................................57
APPENDIXA............................................................................................................................64
APPENDIXB............................................................................................................................65
APPENDIXC............................................................................................................................66
APPENDIXD............................................................................................................................67
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Attributes of numerical models recommended for use in analyzing water quality
conditions marinas and other manmade waterways by US EPA(2001)....................................22
Table 4.1 Group 1 (SFWMD 1996) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4.................29
Table 4.2. Group 2 (elevated weed wrack) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4 .....30
Table 4.3 Canals ranked in priority order in Task 4...................................................................32
Table 5.1. Task 5 Canal prioritization list...................................................................................38
List of Figures
Figure 6.1. Adaptive management framework..........................................................................58
1
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Executive Summary
Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was initiated in the mid-20th century,
before resource managers fully understood their impacts on local water quality and broader
coastal ecosystems. Many of the more than 500 canal systems currently present in the Keys
were excavated to depths of fifteen feet or more in order to maximize production of fill material.
Most were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal networks which maximize
waterfront property but provide little or no tidal flushing and accumulate nutrients and
decomposing organic material.
Water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS
2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized
in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic pollutant
loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of non-
anthropogenic materials such as senescent seagrass leaves and other organic flotsam ("weed
wrack"), leading to elevated levels of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, hydrogen sulfide,
and bacteriological water quality indicators such as fecal coliforms and enterococci.
Improvements in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices are currently
being implemented in many areas of the Keys. These improvements are an essential first step,
but will not solve all the water quality problems in existing canals. Although many of these
problems are linked to wastewater and stormwater discharges, others are due to the physical
structure, depth, and orientation of canals, which can contribute to low flushing and the build-up
of organic flotsam.
Recognizing these points, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007)
developed a canal water quality improvement strategy that includes the following steps:
1. Evaluate and revise the existing `hot spot' list of water quality problem areas;
2. Inventory and characterize canals, identifying those whose water quality problems are
attributable mainly to physical structure, flushing rates and orientation;
3. Develop and evaluate improvement strategies;
4. Identify and compile a list of water quality improvement technologies;
5. Develop a community education and involvement program;
6. Conduct a canal system restoration pilot project; and
7. Implement improvement strategies in canals identified as `hot spots'.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001) have addressed item 1 of this strategy, and work on items
2 and 4 was initiated through the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment
project, which provided an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential
treatment technologies (MACTEC 2003). Additional work on items 2 and 4, and the
development of a conceptual framework for a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP) addressing items 3, 6 and 7, are the subjects of this report.
2
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP, using Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) funds
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Because these funds
were available for only a short time (from March through June, 2012), the timeline of Phase 1
was compressed and its scope was limited to two objectives:
• develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is
comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater
master plans; and
• identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented
by the County and other WQPP participants over the next several years.
The work involved the following tasks:
• Task 1: Collate available information and summarize CMMP objectives;
• Task 2: Identify priority management issues;
• Task 3: Establish consensus -based goals for each priority issue;
• Task 4: Identify the highest -priority canals for potential implementation of restoration
options;
• Task 5: Develop an initial short-list of restoration projects;
• Task 6: Establish an adaptive management process; and
• Task 7: Prepare the Phase 1 CMMP document.
This report represents the deliverable for Task 7 of the project, and provides a summary of the
work conducted during Phase 1 of the CMMP development process.
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Introduction
Construction of residential canals in the Florida Keys was initiated in the mid-20th century,
before resource managers fully understood their impacts on local water quality and broader
coastal ecosystems. Many of the more than 500 canal systems currently present in the Keys
were excavated to depths of fifteen feet or more in order to maximize production of fill material.
Most were designed as long, multi -segmented, dead-end canal networks which maximize
waterfront property but provide little or no tidal flushing and accumulate nutrients and
decomposing organic material.
Water quality issues involving manmade canals have been evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Kruczynski 1999), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS
2007), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). As summarized
in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (2011), these issues include anthropogenic pollutant
loadings from on -site sewage disposal and stormwater runoff, and accumulation of non-
anthropogenic materials such as senescent seagrass leaves and other organic flotsam ("weed
wrack"), leading to elevated levels of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, hydrogen sulfide,
and bacteriological water quality indicators such as fecal coliforms and enterococci.
Kruczynski (1999) provided the following summary of water quality issues related to existing
Keys canals:
• the water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom waters are
oxygen deficient;
• because they usually violate Class III Surface Water Quality Standards, canals were
excluded from the State's previous Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designations;
• canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of nutrients and
other contaminants to other nearshore waters;
• improving flushing of degraded canal systems may improve the water quality within the
canal, but may also result in adding additional nutrients to the adjacent waters; and
• Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit signs
of undesirable nutrient enrichment and eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load
and growth of benthic algae.
Improvements in wastewater treatment and stormwater management practices are currently
being implemented in many areas of the Keys. These improvements are an essential first step,
but will not solve all the water quality problems in existing canals. Although many of these
problems are linked to wastewater and stormwater discharges, others are due to the physical
structure, depth, and orientation of canals, which can contribute to low flushing and the build-up
of organic flotsam.
4
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Recognizing these points, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007)
developed a canal water quality improvement strategy that includes the following steps:
1. Evaluate and revise the existing `hot spot' list of water quality problem areas;
2. Inventory and characterize canals, identifying those whose water quality problems are
attributable mainly to physical structure, flushing rates and orientation;
3. Develop and evaluate improvement strategies;
4. Identify and compile a list of water quality improvement technologies;
5. Develop a community education and involvement program;
6. Conduct a canal system restoration pilot project; and
7. Implement improvement strategies in canals identified as `hot spots'.
The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (CH2MHILL 2000) and Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan (CDM 2001) have addressed item 1 of this strategy, and work on items
2 and 4 was initiated through the Monroe County Residential Canal Inventory and Assessment
project, which provided an inventory of existing canals and a broad overview of potential
treatment technologies (MACTEC 2003). Additional work on items 2 and 4, and the
development of a conceptual framework for a comprehensive Canal Management Master Plan
(CMMP) addressing items 3, 6 and 7, are the subjects of this report.
Phase 1 of the Canal Management Master Plan
In March, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee of the FKNMS Water Quality Steering Committee
initiated work on Phase 1 of the CMMP, using Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) funds
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Because these funds
were available for only a short time (from March through June, 2012), the timeline of Phase 1
was compressed and its scope was limited to two objectives:
• develop a basic conceptual framework for canal restoration and management that is
comparable to the frameworks used in the County's existing wastewater and stormwater
master plans; and
identify a short-list of high -priority canal restoration projects which can be implemented
by the County and other WQPP participants over the next several years.
The work involved the following tasks:
Task 1: Collate available information and summarize CMMP objectives;
Task 2: Identify priority management issues;
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Task 3: Establish consensus -based goals for each priority issue;
Task 4: Identify the highest -priority canals for potential implementation of restoration
options;
Task 5: Develop an initial short-list of restoration projects;
Task 6:Establish an adaptive management process; and
Task 7: Prepare the Phase 1 CMMP document.
This report represents the deliverable for Task 7 of the project, and provides a summary of the
work conducted during Phase 1 of the CMMP development process.
Task 1.1 Summary of available information
As summarized in the Literature Cited section below, a total of 17 publications, and several
Florida Department of Environmental Protection permitting files, were obtained from local, state
and federal agencies, searches of online databases, and other sources. The documents were
disseminated to the appropriate members of the AMEC project team for review, based on the
subject material and team members' areas of expertise.
The available documents addressed three primary topic areas that are relevant to the
development of a canal management master plan (CMMP) for the Florida Keys:
1) Background information on the water quality impairments that currently exist in canal
systems and nearshore waters of the Keys, and steps that are being planned or
undertaken to address them;
2) Overviews of the current state -of -the -science regarding water quality protection and
restoration in manmade canals and other artificial basins; and
3) Best management practices (BMPs) and other management actions that have been
used in other areas, and can be evaluated for potential use to protect and improve water
quality in Keys canal systems.
Brief summaries of these topic areas are provided in the following sections.
Background Information
Information on the water quality impairments that currently exist in the project area, and steps
that are being taken to address them, is provided in several of the documents listed above:
As noted above, Kruczynski (1999) provided the following background information on a
number of water quality issues and potential management actions in the canals and
nearshore waters of the Keys:
M
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Water quality problems due to on -site sewage disposal practices and stormwater
runoff have been documented in residential canals. Water quality parameters
that are degraded include nutrient enrichment, fecal coliform contamination, and
biochemical oxygen demand.
o Long, dead-end canal systems, deep canals of any length, and poorly flushed
basins accumulate weed wrack and other particulate matter.
o The water column of many canals over six feet deep is stratified and bottom
waters are oxygen deficient. Because they usually violate Class III Surface
Water Quality Standards, canals were excluded from Outstanding Florida Waters
(OFW) designation.
o Artificial aeration of canals does not eliminate the sources of excessive nutrients
in canal waters but may result in better mixing which may facilitate nitrogen
cycling.
o Improving flushing of degraded canal systems may improve the water quality
within the canal, but will also result in adding additional nutrients to the adjacent
waters.
o Canal systems and basins with poor water quality are a potential source of
nutrients and other contaminants to other nearshore waters.
o Seagrass beds located near the mouths of some degraded canal systems exhibit
signs of eutrophication, such as increased epiphyte load and growth of benthic
algae.
o Vessel generated turbidity (re -suspended sediments) is a growing concern in
many areas with high boat traffic including canals and open waters.
o There are no definitive studies on the geographic extent of the impact of
human -caused nutrient enrichment. Scientists agree that canal and other
nearshore waters are affected by human -derived nutrients from sewage.
Improved sewage treatment practices are needed to improve canal and other
nearshore waters. Impacts further from shore that may be due to human -derived
nutrients may be reduced or eliminated by cleaning up nearshore waters.
Kruczynski (1999) also provided an overview of an earlier project that was conducted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate water quality conditions in finger
fill canals located in Florida and North Carolina (EPA 1975). The 1975 study found that,
during the rainy season, canals with poor flushing characteristics often exhibited
pronounced density stratification, with a deep layer of high -salinity water essentially
trapped beneath an upper, lower -salinity layer. The resulting stagnation of the lower
portion of the water column was found to encourage oxygen depletion and the release of
nutrients from canal -bottom sediments. The study reported that canals greater than four
to five feet deep regularly experienced violations of State water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen (<4 mg/1).
7
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
• In 1999 Monroe County evaluated a group of stormwater-related water quality problem
areas, which were summarized by CDM (2001) as part of the Monroe County
Stormwater Master Plan. CDM (2001) identified the following eight locations as high -
priority stormwater management problem areas, based on information from earlier
surveys and site visits by trained personnel:
o Campbell's Marina, Key Largo
o Marathon Marina, Vaca Key
o Boot Key Harbor drainage, Vaca Key
o Alex's Junkyard, Stock Island
o Oceanside Marina, Stock Island
o Safe Harbor Area, Stock Island
o Garrison Bight Marina, Key West, and
o Key West Bight, Key West.
Ten medium -priority stormwater management problem areas, and ten "other' problem
areas were also identified in the CDM (2001) report.
CH2MHILL (2000) provided an additional summary of known water -quality problem
areas, focusing on wastewater -related sources and based on information from three
earlier reports: a 1992 Phase I Report of the FKNMS Water Quality Protection Plan, a
modified list of problem areas proposed by the South Florida Water Management District
in 1996, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) developed between Monroe
County and FDEP in 1997 regarding future wastewater permitting practices and the
elimination of existing cesspits. The CH2MHILL (2000) report identified and prioritized a
total of 45 high priority water quality "hot spots", or problem areas that would be
addressed in the near future by the installation of central community wastewater
systems as part of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan.
As one component of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, which was funded by
US Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, URS
(2001) developed a Canal Impact Assessment Module (CIAM) which provides a
comparative tool for evaluating the relative impacts of wastewater and stormwater
discharges into tidally -flushed dead-end canals, and for assessing the relative impacts of
wastewater and stormwater management decisions on nutrient concentrations in
representative canals. (Pathogens and fecal coliforms were not included in the module,
due to a lack of relevant data.) The CIAM was part of a larger carrying capacity analysis
model (CCAM) that was developed to assist state and local jurisdictions to determine the
ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem to withstand the potential impacts of additional land
development activities.
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
The CIAM is based on a steady-state, spreadsheet -based tidal flushing algorithm that
estimates pollutant concentrations in canals based on pollutant loads from stormwater
and wastewater discharges and tidal fluxes from nearshore waters. To develop the
algorithm, data acquisition efforts targeted previous canal water quality studies,
nearshore water quality data, and the magnitude of tidal fluctuations. The module was
applied to ten canal systems that were selected based on the availability of water quality
data and the presence of representative sources of wastewater and stormwater pollutant
loadings, including residential and commercial sources. Only canals with one opening
were considered; plugged canals (with no openings) and canals with multiple openings
were not evaluated.
The URS (2001) report provides the following overview of the strengths and limitations of
the assessment module:
"The CIAM is set up as a canal -specific spreadsheet model. It assumes a long-
term steady-state influx of pollutant loads and volumes. It does not include or
account for a number of variables that may have a significant impact on observed
canal water quality. Some of these potential factors include:
• Sea level rise;
• Water column stratification;
• Wind effects;
• Thermal gradients;
• Surge tides associated with tropical storms or hurricanes;
• Interactions between the benthic/sediment zone and the active water
column;
• Nutrient uptake/release by marine plants
• Washed in seagrasses and similar sources;
• Direct input of water volumes and pollutant loads attributable to
precipitation or atmospheric dryfall deposition;
• Water volume losses attributable to evaporation or transpiration; and
• Direct pollutant inputs related to marine vessel discharges and illicit
discharges.
Based on the wastewater and stormwater management systems that existed at the time
the CIAM was constructed, the module estimated that wastewater represented about
80% of the nutrient (TN and TP) load, 50% of the BOD load, and 25% of the TSS load
entering the canal systems it evaluated. In terms of hydrologic inputs, wastewater
represented about 25% with the remainder coming from stormwater.
Under a future "Smart Growth" scenario that was also evaluated using the CIAM tool,
much of the onsite wastewater sources were assumed to be eliminated and the bulk of
the pollutant loads to the canals became stormwater based. Under this scenario the
wastewater portion of projected nutrient load fell to about 10% of the total, while BOD,
TSS, and hydrologic loads were reduced to 5% or less of the total. On average, nutrient
concentrations were approximately 50% lower in the Smart Growth scenario, BOD
11
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
concentrations were reduced by about a quarter, and TSS concentrations showed a
minor reduction (6%).
Loads discharged from the canals to nearshore waters were also projected to be
reduced in the Smart Growth scenario, but to a lesser extent. Exported nutrient loads
were projected to fall by about 45%, BOD by about 20%, and TSS less than 5%. For all
canals, model results predicted that pollutant concentrations would tend to be highest in
their interior sections, located farthest from the canal mouth.
• Because of the unprecedented (for Florida) scope of the Carrying Capacity project, the
project's co-sponsors requested the National Research Council (NRC) to provide a
critical review of several of the project's draft work products. The NRC (2002) committee
report did not address the canal assessment module. It did, however, provide the
following broad overview of the Carrying Capacity project:
"The contractors did an admirable job of working with the data available.
Time and money constraints aside, however, the task was perhaps too ambitious
an undertaking for the data and level of knowledge that currently exist for Florida
Keys ecosystems. In its present stage of development, the CCAM is not ready to
`determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem ... to withstand all impacts
of additional land development activities' as mandated by Florida Administration
Commission Rule 28.20-100. Significant improvement of the CCAM is required
in several key aspects if it is to be useful as an impact assessment tool.
Endeavors such as the CCAM tend to obscure significant scientific uncertainty
and project an unrealistic understanding of complicated environmental issues.
What is needed and what the committee would like to express in this review, are
expert opinion, common sense, and stakeholder consensus. The CCAM has
important information to bring to the table, particularly where its modules have
been based upon good and reliable scientific data. In the end, however, the
decision to be made will be social not scientific. Once management has been
implemented, science can make further progress toward understanding the
natural system through modeling endeavors such as this one."
Regarding canal -related issues, the report noted that "canal water quality is an important
issue for near -shore environments and is a major public concern" (NRC 2002). It also
noted that "little detailed information is available concerning the depth and cross-section
characteristics of canals, their flushing characteristics, or ambient water quality data."
While these comments do not provide guidance on technical aspects of the CIAM, they
do provide a valuable viewpoint on the importance of stakeholder consensus and social
decision -making in the overall resource management process.
The importance of stakeholder consensus and social decision -making have been
emphasized further by the development and implementation of County -wide master
plans for the management of wastewater and stormwater discharges in the Keys.
Documents prepared by CH2MHILL (2000) and CDM (2001) have summarized these
plans, which are now being implemented in a number of the highest -priority water quality
10
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
problem areas. As noted by URS (2001), the pollutant load reductions that will be
achieved by the continued implementation of these plans are projected to lead to
substantial water quality improvements in the existing canal systems.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS 2007) published a seven -step
canal management strategy, focused on reducing water quality problems in canals and
reducing nutrient loading to other surface waters from canal systems, as part of its
overall sanctuary management plan. The strategy notes that while many water quality
problems in canals are linked to local stormwater and wastewater discharges, others can
be due to a canal's structure and orientation. These physical features can lead to low
flushing and the buildup of weed wrack, which consumes oxygen and releases nutrients
as it decays. The FKNMS (2007) strategy proposes to inventory and characterize
canals and investigate technologies to determine whether it would be worthwhile to
implement corrective actions, such as weed gates and aeration systems, to improve
water quality. It notes that plans for implementing improvements in canal circulation and
flushing would have to be developed in coordination with plans for dealing with
stormwater and wastewater pollution from cesspits and septic tanks.
More recently, FDEP has funded the development of Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans
for the surface waters of the Keys, as an alternative to the development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). RA plans were developed for the Upper, Middle and
Lower Keys by CDM and URS (2008a, b, c), and an overall update was prepared by
CDM (2011). The RA plans note that "halo zone" waters surround the Keys out to 500
meters offshore, and "nearshore" waters extend from 500 meters out to 12,100 meters
offshore. These are classified as Class III waters (whose beneficial uses include
recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population
of fish and wildlife) and Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). The primary pollutants of
concern for these waters are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and Florida water
quality standards require that "in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a water body
be altered so as to cause an imbalance of natural populations of flora and fauna." The
reports note that, because far -field sources dominate the nutrient concentrations in
nearshore waters, the recommended water quality target in the nearshore area is
defined to be an insignificant increase in nutrient concentrations above natural
background levels at 500 meters from shore. "Insignificant' in this case is defined as
less than 10 pg/I for total nitrogen and less than 2 pg/I for total phosphorus, and
background is defined as the Halo Zone condition in the absence of anthropogenic
loads. Another recommended water quality target is that the nearshore ambient nutrient
concentrations at 500 meters should average less than the ambient concentrations
measured at the time of OFW designation. These water quality goals are relevant to the
canal management process because canal management efforts are expected to support
their achievement.
The Little Venice neighborhood on Marathon Key was selected in the Monroe County
Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan as the first phase of wastewater improvements for the
Marathon area because of its high development density, inadequate cesspool and septic
systems, and known water quality problems in the canals. Briceno and Boyer (2009)
conducted the Little Venice water quality monitoring project, with funding support from
EPA and FDEP, to detect changes in water quality as a function of the remediation
11
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
activities. The project included two phases. Phase 1was executed prior to remediation,
from May 2001 to December 2003. Phase 2 began in June 2005, when construction of
the wastewater collection system was mostly completed, and lasted until to May 2009.
A "Before —After Control -Impact" (BACI) experimental design was used to assess
changes due to remediation. Observations and sampling were performed in three
remedied canals (112th St., 100th St. and, 97th St. canals), in one control (reference)
canal lacking remedial actions (91st St. canal) and a near shore site for comparison
purposes (Briceno and Boyer 2009).
Water samples were collected weekly for bacteriological analysis including enumeration
of fecal coliforms (until November 2007) and enterococci. Weekly field parameters
measured at both the surface and bottom of the water column at each station included:
salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Weekly water samples from each
station were analyzed for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and chlorophyll a
(CHLA). Additionally, monthly grab samples were analyzed for ammonium, nitrate,
nitrite, soluble reactive phosphate, silicate, and total organic carbon (Briceno and Boyer
2009).
Non -parametric Mann -Whitney tests indicated statistically significant (p<0.05) declines in
TN and increases in TP, surface and bottom DO, and CHLA in almost all sites. These
changes were partially related to region wide variability as well as local condition and/or
remediation actions. State of Florida Rule 62-302.530, for Class III marine waters,
specifies that DO "shall never be less than 4.0 mg/1". Prior to remediation, this threshold
was exceeded in 57% and 67% of sampling events for surface and bottom water
samples respectively. For Phase 2, the benchmark was exceeded 45% and 54% for
surface and bottom DO, respectively. In spite of this improvement, low DO
concentrations continue to be an issue of concern in Little Venice waters (Briceno and
Boyer 2009).
The Florida impaired water rule states that an estuary is impaired if the annual mean
CHLA concentration is greater than 11 pg/l. Using this as a benchmark, annual mean
CHLA concentrations for all canals and the offshore site were well below State
standards during both Phase 1 (1.33 pg/1) and Phase 2 (2.14 pg/1). The overall increase
during Phase 2 was statistically significant (Briceno and Boyer 2009), presumably due to
regional factors unrelated to the remediation effort.
The Florida State standard for single counts of fecal coliforms in Class III -Marine waters
is 800 CFU per 100 ml; the EPA recommended standard for Enterococci is 104 CFU per
100 ml. During Phase 1, 0.4% of fecal coliform observations exceeded the State
standard, and 6% of Enterococci counts exceeded the recommended EPA level. Fecal
coliform analyses in Phase 2 indicated that 1 % of observations exceeded the FL State
standard. After 4 years into remediation (Phase 2), 4% of Enterococci counts exceeded
the recommended EPA level, suggesting a slight improvement in water quality (Briceno
and Boyer 2009).
Bacterial count distribution along the year corresponded to both climatic conditions and
site location. Higher counts occurred in the rainy season. In addition, the heads of the
canals, having longer residence times, had significantly greater bacterial numbers than
12
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
did the mouths. Stations in worse condition in Phase 1 experienced greater
improvements following remediation, a result emphasized by Briceno and Boyer (2009)
as having potentially important implications for other canal remediation projects.
Overall, Briceno and Boyer (2009) interpreted the water quality monitoring results as
providing encouraging signs of improvement in water quality in Little Venice as an
outcome of remedial actions advocated by the Monroe County, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the
community of Marathon.
Current State -of -the Science and Recommended BMPs
A review of existing Monroe County Florida Keys site specific canal restorations included FDEP
Permitting files: 15 permits related to installation of weed gates/barriers or aerators (list
attached), Jolly Rogers Culvert Construction ERP #44-2694015, and Breezeswept Beach
Estates Culvert Project ERP #44-0143157. Crane Point Hammock 1 acre pond suction dredge
project is also of relevance. Several backfilling projects included: Indigo Reef, Sunset Acres,
and Carrysfort. These restorations will be included in the GIS database.
The most recent national guidance on water quality protection and restoration in marinas and
other manmade waterways involving recreational boating uses was provided by the US EPA
(2001). Although it was not prepared specifically for canal systems, the management issues
and BMPs covered in the document are highly applicable to manmade canals.
The guidance document is divided into sections that address the following topics:
• Sources of nonpoint source pollution and identification of pollutants of concern;
• Overview of management measures, BMPs, and the use of combinations of BMPs (BMP
systems) to address water quality issues,
• Specific management measures for marinas and other manmade waterways; and
• Models that can be used to determine the dynamics of water flow and water quality
variations in these systems.
The management measures discussed in the guidance document are considered by EPA to
represent the best available, economically achievable practices or combinations of practices
that can be used to address pollution sources related to marinas and other artificial waterways
that are used for recreational boating. The BMPs recommended in the document are activities
that can be used, alone or in combination, to achieve the management measures. The
management measures address the following issues that are applicable to canal management
in the Keys:
• Circulation and Flushing — site and design marinas and other manmade waterways such
that tides and/or currents will aid in flushing of the site or renew its water regularly;
13
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
• Water Quality and Habitat Assessments — assess water quality as part of the siting,
design and water quality management processes. Use siting and design features to
protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources, wetlands, submerged aquatic
vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic habitat areas as designed by local,
state, or federal governments;
• Shoreline Stabilization — where shoreline or streambank erosion is a nonpoint source
pollution problem, shorelines and streambanks should be stabilized. Vegetative methods
are strongly preferred unless structural methods are more cost-effective, considering the
severity of wave and wind erosion, offshore bathymetry, and the potential adverse
impact on other shorelines, streambanks, and offshore areas.
• Storm Water Runoff — implement effective runoff control strategies that include the use
of pollution prevention and the proper design of areas that may generate stormwater-
related pollutant loads;
• Fueling Station Design and Petroleum Control — design fueling stations to allow for ease
in cleanup of spills. Reduce the amount of fuel and oil from boat bilges and fuel tank air
vents entering surface waters.
• Liquid Material Management — provide and maintain appropriate storage, transfer,
containment, and disposal facilities for liquid material such as oil, harmful solvents and
paints, and encourage recycling of these materials;
• Solid Waste Management — properly dispose of solid wastes to limit their entry into
surface waters
• Fish Waste Management — promote sound fish waste management through a
combination of fish -cleaning restrictions, public education, and proper disposal of fish
waste
• Sewage Facility Management and Maintenance — install pumpout, dump station, and
adequate restroom facilities at marinas and other public use areas to reduce the release
of sewage to surface waters. Design these facilities to allow ease of access, and post
signage to promote use by the public. Ensure that sewage pumpout facilities are
maintained in operational condition and encourage their use
• Boat Cleaning and Operation — for boats that are in the water, perform cleaning
operations to minimize, to the extent practicable, the release to surface waters of (a)
harmful cleaners and solvents and (b) paint from in -water hull cleaning. Manage boating
activities where necessary to decrease turbidity and physical destruction of shallow
water habitat
• Public Education — public education, outreach, and training programs should be
instituted for to prevent improper disposal of polluting material.
14
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
BMPs recommended to address these issues include:
• Circulation and flushing:
amec
o Ensure that the bottom of the manmade waterway and its entrance channels are
not deeper than adjacent natural waters or navigable channels
o Consider design alternatives in poorly flushed waterbodies to enhance flushing
o Use as few enclosed water sections or separated basins as possible to promote
circulation within the entire basin
o Consider the value of entrance channels in promoting flushing when designing or
reconfiguring a manmade system
o Establish two openings (rather than a single opening) at the most appropriate
locations to promote flow -through currents
o Consider mechanical aerators to improve flushing and water quality where basin
and entrance channel configuration cannot provide adequate flushing
• Water Quality and Habitat Assessments
o Use water quality sampling and/or monitoring to measure water quality conditions
o Use a water quality modeling methodology to predict future water quality
conditions.
o Monitor water quality using indicators and/or rapid bioassessment techniques
o Establish a volunteer monitoring program.
o Conduct habitat surveys and characterize sites, including identifying any exotic or
invasive species
o Assess habitat function (e.g., spawning area, nursery area, feeding area) to
minimize indirect effects.
o Create new habitats or expand habitats in the waterway
o Minimize disturbance of riparian areas
o Where feasible, use dry stack boat storage
• Shoreline Stabilization
o Use vegetative plantings, wetlands, beaches, and natural shorelines where
space allows
15
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Where shorelines need structural stabilization and where space and use allow,
riprap revetment is preferable to a solid vertical bulkhead.
o Where reflected waves will not endanger shorelines or habitats and where space
is limited, protect shorelines with structural features such as vertical bulkheads.
o At boat ramps, retain natural shoreline features to the extent feasible and protect
disturbed areas from erosion.
• Stormwater Runoff Management for Marina Areas
o Sweep or vacuum around hull maintenance areas, roads, and driveways
frequently
o Sweep parking lots regularly
o Plant turf or other vegetative cover between impervious areas and manmade
basins
o Construct new or restore former wetlands where feasible and practical.
o Use porous pavement where feasible
o Install oil/grit separators and/or vertical media filters to capture pollutants in runoff
o Use catch basins where stormwater discharges enter a basin in large pulses
o Add filters to storm drains that are located near work areas
o Place absorbents in drain inlets
o Use chemical and filtration treatment systems only where necessary
• Fueling Station Design and Petroleum Control
o Use automatic shutoffs on fuel lines and at hose nozzles to reduce fuel loss
o Remove old-style fuel nozzle triggers that are used to hold the nozzle open
without being held
o Install personal watercraft (PWC) floats at fuel docks to help drivers refuel
without spilling
o Regularly inspect, maintain, and replace fuel hoses, pipes, and tanks
o Install a spill monitoring system
16
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Train fuel dock staff in spill prevention, containment, and cleanup procedures
o Install easy -to -read signs on the fuel dock that explain proper fueling, spill
prevention, and spill reporting procedures
o Locate and design boat fueling stations so that spills can be contained, such as
with a floating boom, and cleaned up easily
o Write and implement a fuel spill recovery plan
o Have spill containment equipment storage, such as a locker attached or adjacent
to the fuel dock, easily accessible and clearly marked
o Promote the installation and use of fuel/air separators on air vents or tank stems
of inboard fuel tanks to reduce the amount of fuel spilled into surface waters
during fueling
o Avoid overfilling fuel tanks
o Provide "doughnuts" or small petroleum absorption pads to patrons to use while
fueling to catch splashback and the last drops when the nozzle is transferred
back from the boat to the fuel dock
o Routinely check for engine fuel leaks and use a drip pan under engines
o Avoid pumping any bilge water that is oily or has a sheen. Promote the use of
materials that capture or digest oil in bilges. Examine these materials frequently
and replace as necessary
o Extract used oil from absorption pads if possible, or dispose of it in accordance
with petroleum disposal guidelines
o Prohibit the use of detergents and emulsifiers on fuel spills
• Liquid Material Management
o Build curbs, berms, or other barriers around areas used for liquid material
storage to contain spills
o Store liquid materials under cover on a surface that is impervious to the type of
material stored
o Store minimal quantities of hazardous materials
o Provide clearly labeled, separate containers for the disposal of waste oils, fuels,
and other liquid wastes
o Recycle liquid materials where possible
17
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Change engine oil using nonspill vacuum -type systems to perform spill -proof oil
changes or to suction oily water from bilges
o Where possible, use low -toxicity or nontoxic materials (such as water -based
paints and solvents) in place of more toxic products
o Follow manufacturer's directions and use nontoxic or low -toxicity pesticides
o Prepare a hazardous materials spill recovery plan and update it as necessary
o Keep adequate spill response equipment where liquid materials are stored
• Solid Waste Management
o Avoid performing hull maintenance while boats are in the water, and use a
reusable blasting medium
o At boat ramps and other public use sites, place trash receptacles in convenient
locations for patrons. Require patrons to clean up pet wastes and provide a
specific dog walking area
o Provide facilities for collecting recyclable materials
o Encourage fishing line collection, recycling or disposal
o Provide boaters with trash bags
• Fish Waste Management
o Install fish cleaning stations at marinas and boat launch sites
o Compost fish waste where appropriate
o Freeze fish parts and reuse them as bait or chum on the next fishing trip
o Encourage catch and release fishing, which does not kill the fish and produces
no fish waste
• Sewage Facility Management and Maintenance
o Install pumpout facilities and dump stations, using systems compatible with local
needs
o Provide pumpout service at convenient times and at a reasonable cost
18
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Keep pumpout stations clean and easily accessible, and consider having staff
perform pumpouts
o Provide portable toilet dump stations near small slips and launch ramps
o Establish practices and post signs to control pet waste problems
o Avoid feeding wild birds in the marina
o Establish no discharge zones to prevent boat sewage from entering boating
waters
o Regularly inspect and maintain pumpout stations and other sewage facilities
o Disinfect the suction connection of a pumpout station (stationary or portable) by
dipping it into or spraying it with disinfectant
o Maintain convenient, clean, dry, and pleasant restroom facilities in public use
areas
o Maintain a dedicated fund and issue a contract for pumpout and dump station
repair and maintenance
• Boat Cleaning and Operation
o Wash boat hulls above the waterline by hand. Where feasible, remove boats
from the water and clean them where debris can be captured and properly
disposed of
o Attempt to wash boats frequently enough that the use of cleansers will not be
necessary.
o If using cleansers, buy and use ones that will have minimal impact on the aquatic
environment
o Switch to long-lasting and low -toxicity or nontoxic antifouling paints
o Avoid in -the -water hull scraping or any abrasive process done underwater that
could remove paint from the boat hull
o Ensure that adequate precautions have been taken to minimize the spread of
exotic and invasive species when boats are transferred from one waterbody to
another
o Minimize the impacts of wastewater from pressure washing
o Restrict boater traffic in shallow -water areas
19
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Establish and enforce no wake zones to decrease turbidity, shore erosion, and
shoreline damage
• Public Education
o Use signs to inform waterfront property owners and marina patrons of
appropriate clean boating practices
o Establish bulletin boards for environmental messages and idea sharing
o Promote recycling and trash reduction programs
o Hand out pamphlets or flyers, send newsletters, and add inserts to bill mailings
with information about how recreational boaters can protect the environment and
have clean boating waters
o Organize and present enjoyable environmental education meetings,
presentations, and demonstrations and consider integrating them into ongoing
programs
o Educate and train marina staff to do their jobs in an environmentally conscious
manner and to be good role models for marina patrons
o Insert language into facility contracts that promotes tenants' using certain areas
and clean boating techniques when maintaining their boats. Use a contract that
ensures that tenants will comply with the marina's best management practices
o Have a clearly written environmental best management practices agreement for
outside contractors to sign as a precondition to working on any boat in the marina
o Participate with an organization that promotes clean boating practices
o Provide MARPOL placards
o Paint educational signs on storm drains
o Establish and educate marina patrons and other boaters about good fish
cleaning practices
o Provide information on local waste collection and recycling programs
o Teach boaters how to fuel boats to minimize fuel spills
o Stock phosphate -free, nontoxic cleaners and other environmentally friendly
products
o Place signs in the water and label charts to alert boaters about sensitive habitat
areas
20
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Educate boaters to thoroughly clean their boats before boating in other
waterbodies
• Numerical Analyses and Models
The EPA (2001) guidance document also includes brief reviews of, and suggestions on the
use of, a variety of numerical models to address issues such as circulation, flushing and
water quality dynamics in manmade waterways.
The models were selected based on the following criteria:
o They are in the public domain.
o They are available at a minimal cost from various public agencies
o They are supported to a varying extent by federal or state agencies. The form of
support is usually telephone contact with a staff of engineers and programmers who
have experience with the model and can provide guidance (usually free of charge).
o They have been used extensively for various purposes and are generally accepted
within the modeling profession.
o Together they form a sequence of increasingly more technically complex models,
taking additional phenomena into account in a more detailed manner.
The guidance notes that selection from among these models should be made on the basis of
the model capabilities needed, which are summarized in Table 1.1.
21
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Table 1.1 Attributes of numerical models recommended for use in analyzing water quality
conditions marinas and other manmade waterways by US EPA (2001).
Relative
Model
Source
Complexity
Cost to
Water quality
Implement
issues addressed
Tidal Prism
US EPA Region 4
Simple
Low
DO, fecal coliform
Analysis
bacteria
Tidal Prism
Virginia Institute of
Mid -Range
Medium
DO, BOD, nutrients,
Model
Marine Science
phytoplankton, fecal
coliforms
NCDEM DO
North Carolina
Mid -Range
Medium
DO
Dept. of Environ.
Health and Natural
Resources
WASP
US EPA Region 4
Complex
High
DO, BOD, nutrients,
phytoplankton, toxics
fecal coliforms
EFDC
Virginia Institute of
Complex
High
DO, BOD, temperature,
Hydrodynamic
Marine Science
salinity, nutrients,
sediment, finfish,
phytoplankton, shellfish,
toxics, fecal coliforms,
eutrophication
Additional information on numerical models that can be used to evaluate the circulation and
flushing characteristics of manmade canal systems was provided by Goodwin (1991), who used
a one-dimensional hydrodynamic model to evaluate the potential effects of installing tide gates
in two dead-end canal systems located on the southwest coast of Florida. Flow simulations
were carried out using a branched -network flow model (BRANCH) developed by the USGS.
The model results indicated that tidal water -level differences between the two canal systems
could be used to increase water circulation through the installation of one-way tide gate
interconnections. Computations showed that construction of one to four tide gates would
provide several beneficial water quality effects including reduced density stratification and
associated dissolved oxygen depletion in canal bottom waters, increased localized rearation,
and more efficient discharge of stormwater runoff entering the canals (Goodwin 1991).
22
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
References Cited
Briceno, H.O., and J.N. Boyer. 2009. Little Venice water quality monitoring project final report.
USEPA, Atlanta, GA and FDEP, Ft. Myers, FL. 81 p.
CDM. 2001. Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Monroe County. Key
West, FL. 304 p.
CDM. 2011. Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance Documentation Update. FDEP. Tallahassee,
FL. 52 p.
CDM and URS. 2008. Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 149 p.
CDM and URS. 2008b. Northern Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation. FDEP.
Tallahassee, FL. 136 p.
CDM and URS. 2008c. South -Central Keys Area Reasonable Assurance Documentation.
FDEP. Tallahassee, FL. 126 p.
CH2MHILL. 2000. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, Vols. 1 and 2. Monroe
County. Key West, FL. 219 p.
FDEP. 2011. Site -Specific Information in Support of Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Florida Bay — Draft. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. 52 p.
FKNMS. 2007. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Revised Management Plan. FKNMS.
Marathon, FL. 382 p.
Goodwin, C.R. 1991. Simulation of the effects of proposed tide gates on circulation, flushing
and water quality in residential canals, Cape Coral, Florida. U.S.G.S. Open -File Report 91-237
Kruczynski, W.L. 1999. Water quality concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, effects and
solutions. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Water Quality Protection Program.
Marathon, FL, 65 p.
National Research Council. 2002. A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
National Academies Press. Washington, DC. 180 p.
URS. 2001. Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, Canal Impact Assessment Module. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL and Florida Department of Community Affairs,
Tallahassee, FL. 173 p.
USACE and SFWMD. 2004. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Florida
Keys Water Quality Improvements Program. USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West
Palm Beach, FL. 214 p.
23
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
USACE and SFWMD. 2006. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program: Program
Management Plan (Final). USACE, Jacksonville, FL and SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL. 114
P.
USEPA. 1975. Finger -fill canal studies: Florida and North Carolina (EPA 904/9-76-017).
USEPA, Washington, DC. 232 p.
USEPA. 2001. National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
from Marinas and Recreational Boating (EPA 841-B-01-005) USEPA, Washington, DC. 209 p.
24
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Task 1.2. Data deficiencies in the project geodatabase
The purpose of this section is to review the existing 2003 Monroe County Residential Canal
Inventory and Assessment GIS database currently being updated by AMEC to determine if
there are data deficiencies that will affect other work on Phase 1 of CMMP development. The
purpose of identifying these data gaps is to make stakeholders aware of potential difficulties in
canal technology selection/design elements and to assist in determining future data acquisition
needs.
The identified data gaps in the existing updated GIS database for the Monroe County Canals
are as follows:
1. Depth information for the canals — The attribute field for canal depth in the existing GIS
database was based upon limited permit information, not actual as -built values. Actual canals
depths are required to adequately evaluate if backfilling is an applicable restoration method and
are required to accurately estimate backfilling costs. The depth data will also be necessary to
evaluate circulation effectiveness for canal flushing alternatives.
2. Sediment/organic material thickness in canals — There currently are no available data
sources concerning the thickness of accumulated sediment and/or organic material in the
bottom of canals. This information is needed to evaluate if this accumulated material is
contributing to degrading the water quality in the canals, to estimate the quantities that may
require removal, and to determine the most cost effective restoration option(s). A qualitative
evaluation of the weed rack accumulation may be performed for each canal by performing an
inspection of the high definition aerials to describe the visible amount of weed rack in each
canal. This approach will provide limited information that could be cross referenced against the
known accumulation depths (if available) and then extrapolated for each canal. This approach
may be more accurate than approximate methods based on energy and orientation of the canal
mouth due to the complex and variable nature of ocean currents.
3. Canal specific water quality data — There is limited canal specific water quality data
available in the Keys. The existing GIS database includes all currently available information, but
it is limited to only a fraction of the canals (52/518). Also many sampled canals are only
characterized by one event. Quantification of canal water quality improvements, especially
related to restoration efforts, will be hard to document without canal specific water quality data.
Task 1.3. CMMP objectives
On April 13, 2012, the Canal Subcommittee met to initiate work on the Monroe County Canal
Management Master Plan (CMMP) project. As part of that meeting, the subcommittee
discussed Task 1.3, the development of an overall objectives statement for the CCMP.
The purpose of the objectives statement is to provide a very brief summary of the overarching
goals of the canal management effort, capturing its overall intent in a few sentences that will be
readily understandable to policymakers, resource managers and the interested public.
25
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
A draft objectives statement, which was taken with minor modification from the 2000 Monroe
County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, was used as the starting point. After some
discussion of wording changes that would make the statement more applicable to canal
management issues, the subcommittee adopted the following objectives statement for the
CMMP:
"The objective of the CMMP is to provide an ecologically sound and economically feasible
funding and implementation strategy for improving and managing the environmental quality of
canal systems in the Florida Keys. The plan will provide flexible and cost-effective solutions that
improve canal management practices throughout the Keys and satisfy the existing and future
needs of the community. It must address affordability and equity issues, reflect key stakeholder
concerns, and satisfy environmental and regulatory criteria and guidelines."
Task 2: Priority management issues
As noted above, because of the short timeline associated with this first phase of the CMMP
project, it is anticipated that this initial issues list will be a preliminary one. The objective is to
identify a small group of high -priority canal management and restoration issues that will be
sufficient to guide work during the first phase of CMMP development. It is anticipated that a
more comprehensive priorities list, appropriate for inclusion in a broader plan whose scope
would be comparable to the existing Sanitary Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans, will be
developed in a future phase of the project, if funding is available to support that larger work
effort.
Based upon reviews of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan, Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan, Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary Management Plans, Florida Keys Reasonable Assurance
Documents (FKRADs), and other sources, the following management and restoration issues
were identified as potential priorities:
• Water quality — nutrient loading, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
• Water quality — dissolved oxygen/hypoxia
• Water quality — organic matter (e.g., weed wrack)
• Water quality — human pathogen levels
• Water quality — compliance with regulatory requirements (e.g., WQ criteria; WBID
impairments; TMDL/Reasonable Assurance process; NNC when adopted)
• Sediment quality — anoxia; sulfides; sediment contaminants (TEL/PEL exceedances)
• Habitat quality — benthic community; intertidal community; shoreline stability and
vegetation
• Physical characteristics — maximum depth; bathymetry; geometry; orientation
• Physical characteristics — circulation and flushing
• Physical characteristics — effects on local hydrology
• Public involvement in the canal management process
26
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Following discussion of these items during an April 27, 2012, meeting with the Canal
Subcommittee of the Water Quality Steering Committee, the following issues were identified as
priorities for the first phase of the CMMP project:
• Water Quality — restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels
that are consistent with the State water quality criteria. Class III criteria are applicable
which include fish consumption; recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy
well balanced population of fish and wildlife.
• Water Quality — Organic Material — reduce the entry and accumulation of seagrass
leaves and other `weed wrack' in affected canals.
• Sediment Quality — improve anoxia, sulfide levels, and concentrations of potentially toxic
anthropogenic sediment contaminants in canals.
• Habitat Quality —improve habitat for benthic and intertidal communities, and maintain
adequate shoreline stability and vegetation.
• Public involvement in the canal management process.
It was agreed at the April 27, 2012 meeting that the physical characteristics of canals are
important but they are more a cause of water quality problems and that improvement in
circulation and flushing is a restoration technique. These issues were therefore not included in
the final management issue list.
The possibility of ranking of the management issues was discussed; however, it was concluded
that all of the selected issues were of equally high priority.
The above priority management issues will guide work on Tasks 3, 4 and 5 of the approved
CMMP scope of work.
Task 3. Management goals for priority issues
As with the management issues identified in Task 2, because of the short timeline associated
with Phase 1 of CMMP development, the management goals identified in this task are
preliminary ones. Their purpose is to provide initial goal statements sufficient to guide work on
Task 4 (which will identify priority canals for the potential implementation of restoration options)
and Task 5 (which will develop an initial short-list of restoration projects). It is anticipated that
more comprehensive goal statements may be developed in a future phase of the project, if
funding is available to support that larger work effort.
Based on discussion with the Canals Subcommittee during the meeting held on April 27, 2012,
the following initial goals were identified for the five priority management issues selected in Task
2. The goals are intended to be protective of living resources, technically defensible,
quantifiable (where possible), readily measurable, and challenging but achievable.
27
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
• Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
amec
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels that are
consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III waters, whose
designated uses include human recreation as well as the propagation and maintenance of a
healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The State water quality standards are
detailed in Florida Administrative Code 62-302.
• Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack)
Goal: In canal systems whose location make them susceptible to receiving large inputs of
seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from nearshore waters, install cost-effective
barriers to prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels that do not contribute to
eutrophication, hypoxia, or other water and sediment quality issues within the canals.
• Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment toxicity in
canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from developing in canal
systems where they are not yet present.
• Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal habitats that currently support native flora and
fauna, and improve water and sediment quality in other areas to levels that are capable of
supporting them.
• Issue 5. Public Involvement in the Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a constituency of informed, involved citizens who understand the
environmental and economic issues involved in managing manmade canal systems
Task 4. Priority sites for restoration
An initial list of potential project sites and site -specific restoration concepts were developed
using the information collated and evaluated in Task 1, as well as site visits that included visual
inspections of canals and spot -collection of depth information and hydrographic (e.g., DO, water
temperature, pH, and conductivity) data.
Two groups of canals were selected for site visits:
1. Canals in subdivisions that were identified as water quality problem areas by a working
group convened by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in 1996; and
2. Canals identified as having water quality problems associated with weed wrack that were
located in geographic areas not included in the SFWMD list.
28
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
The SFWMD priority list of water quality problem areas was identified by subdivision (not canal)
and was included in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan Technical
Memorandum No. 4. For Group 1 it was necessary to determine which canal(s) in each of the
subdivision are likely to have the most serious water quality problems, due to poor designs that
limit circulation and flushing. This was accomplished by examining aerial photographs and
information from the project geodatabase. A site visit was then performed to confirm that the
most problematic canals within each subdivision had been identified. For group 2, aerial
photographs taken during the winter of 2006 were examined to identify canals with significant
weed wrack coverage at the water surface. A subset of these canals was then selected to
provide additional geographic coverage across all of the keys. The canal systems that were
evaluated using site visits are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
Table 4.1 Group 1 (SFWMD 1996) canals evaluated using site visits during Task 4.
Subdivision Identified as Priority
Water Quality Problem Area by
SFWMD (1996) Working Group
Priority Canal Identified
During Site Visit'
LAKE SURPRISE/SEXTON COVE
24' KEY LARGO
CROSS KEY ESTATES
45 KEY LARGO
WYNKEN, BLYNKEN AND NOD
78 ROCK HARBOR
HAMMER POINT PARK
93 TAVERNIER
CONCH KEY
164 CONCH KEY
LITTLE VENICE
196 MARATHON
LITTLE VENICE
200 MARATHON
PORT PINE HEIGHTS
238 BIG PINE KEY
BOOT KEY HARBOUR
243 MARATHON
KNIGHT'S KEY CAMPGROUND
252 MARATHON
DOCTOR'S ARM
258 BIG PINE KEY
DOCTOR'S ARM
266 BIG PINE KEY
TROPICAL BAY
277 BIG PINE KEY
EDEN PINES COLONY
278 BIG PINE KEY
SANDS SUBDIVISION
286 BIG PINE KEY
CUDJOE GARDENS
329 CUDJOE KEY
BAYPOINT SUBDIVISION
433 SADDLEBUNCH KEYS
GULFREST PARK
437 BIG COPPITT
Note: 1 Canal ID number from project geodatabase
29
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Table 4.2. Group 2 (elevated weed wrack) canals evaluated using site visits during Task
4.
Canal ID
163' LONG KEY/LAYTON
223 MARATHON
261 NO NAME KEY
307 SUGARLOAF KEY
471 KEY HAVEN
Note: ' Canal ID number from project geodatabase
These potential project sites were then evaluated as a group and scored relative to one another
using the following criteria.
1. Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to
10.
2. Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3. Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4. Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of +5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A +10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5. Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
30
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6. Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing 0% to 100% likelihood of being eligible and
competitive for external funding support.
7. Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0
to +10)
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
8. Project "implementability" (scored from 0 to +10)
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
At the time the scoring was done, sufficient information was not yet available to score criteria 3,
5, 6 or 7. A score of zero was assigned for this initial ranking. (Information to score these
criteria was gathered during Task 5, and utilized to develop the initial short-list of restoration
projects.) To meet the requirements of Task 4, the remaining criteria were scored using the
following methods:
Severity of the problem':
DO
Hydrogen Sulfide
Site Score
Minimum DO > 4 mg/L
No hydrogen sulfide issue
0
Minimum DO >2 mg/L, <4 mg/L
No to slight hydrogen sulfide issue
5
Minimum DO <2 mg/L
Hydrogen sulfide issue
10
Note: 'Overall site score is based on either the DO or hydrogen sulfide score, whichever is
larger. Scores between 0 and 5 or between 5 and 10 can be given depending on severity of
DO or hydrogen sulfide issues observed at site.
31
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Potential to provide improvement:
amec
Anticipated change in DO or hydrogen sulfide score
Site Score
Small to no effect
0
Moderate effect + or -
+5, -5
Large effect (+ or -)
+10, -10
Public benefit (with number of affected users estimated using aerial photography):
Anticipated number of users affected 2
Site Score
Minimum (positively or negatively)
0
Median (positively or negatively)
+5, -5
Maximum (positively or negatively)
+10, -10
Note: 2Numbers of affected users were estimated based on the numbers of waterfront lots
present on the canals listed in Tables 1 and 2. From that sample of canals, the one with the
minimum number of lots was given a score of zero and the one with the maximum number
was given a score of 10. Scores for other remaining canals were interpolated using
percentiles (i.e., 10th percentile=1, 25th percentile=2.5, 50th percentile=5.0, etc.). In addition,
two canals in areas with large numbers of recreational users (the Boot Key Harbor and
Knights Key canals) were given scores of 10 to reflect their heavy recreational use.
Project "implementability":
Anticipated difficulty of implementation
Site Score
Significant difficulty
0
Moderate difficulty
5
Low difficulty
10
The prioritized list of canals that resulted from this process, and an initial set of potential
restoration technologies that may be appropriate for each canal based on currently -available
information, are shown in Table 4.3. The canals are listed in descending order, with higher
priority locations (canals with higher overall site scores) located at the top of the table and the
lower priority locations at the bottom.
Table 4.3. Canals ranked in priority order in Task 4 (higher overall score = higher
priority).
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Area Name
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Tropical Bay Estates
277
Weed wrack loading
32.2
prevention
32
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Area Name
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Doctors Arm
258
Weed wrack loading
31.5
prevention
Circulation pump (reduction in
Sands Subdivision
286
stormwater loading is
28.7
appropriate)
Cross Key Estates
45
Backfilling and/or pumping to
28.6
increase circulation
Weed wrack loading
Knights Key
252
prevention primary treatment;
28
Campground
backfilling as a secondary
treatment
Weed wrack loading
No Name Key
261
prevention; maintenance of
27.4
existing culvert at canal ends
Doctors Arm
266
Weed wrack loading
27.4
prevention
Eden Pines
278
Culvert or pumping to increase
27.0
circluation
Weed wrack loading
Wynken, Blynken and
78
prevention primary treatment;
26.3
Nod
backfilling secondary
treatment
Layton/Long Key
163
Backfilling or pumping to
24.2
increase circulation
Port Pine Heights
238
Pumping to increase
23.0
circulation
Bay Point
433
Culvert maintenance
22.8
Weed wrack loading reduction,
Sugarloaf
307
pumping to improve
22.2
circulation, backfilling
Conch Key
164
Culvert modification
22.2
33
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Area Name
Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score
Number
Technologies
In Task 4
Weed wrack Loading
prevention primary technology;
Marathon
223
potential need for secondary
22.0
treatment of a circulation
pump.
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert. Depth
Boot Key Harbor
243
information will be required to
22.0
evaluate if backfilling is
appropriate.
Circulation pump (reduction in
Key Haven
471
stormwater loading is
21.8
appropriate)
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
21.0
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
20.6
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
15.1
Lake Surprise - Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
11.7
Cove
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
10.8
Existing culverts provide
sufficient flushing; reduction in
Cudjoe Gardens
329
nutrient loading from future
4.6
VW TP installation will
additionally improve quality.
The initial set of potential restoration technologies that appear applicable to these canals
include:
o Reductions in weed wrack loading (using bubble curtains, weed gates or other
methods);
o Enhanced circulation (using culverts, pumps, or other means) to reduce hydraulic
residence times and eliminate areas of water column stagnation;
34
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
o Removal of accumulated organic sediments, in areas where the sediments are
contributing to the development of phytoplankton blooms, bottom -water hypoxia and
excessive hydrogen sulfide production; and
o Backfilling to reduce canal depth, in areas where excessive depth is contributing to poor
circulation, bottom -water hypoxia, and other canal management issues.
35
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Task 5. Initial short-list of restoration projects
This is a key task of the Phase 1 CMMP, and is intended to provide a short-list of "early action"
project sites and restoration activities for which implementation funds will be sought during the
next one to two years. Items included in the deliverables for Task 5 include:
• A short-list of projects selected for immediate restoration implementation, potential sources
of grant funding that could be pursued for these projects, and the information that will be
needed to prepare those grant applications;
• A summary of each short-listed project, including information on the affected WBID, water
quality impairments addressed by the project, a conceptual restoration design, estimated
improvements associated with the project, and a preliminary budget and scope of work;
• Information on canal depth that is currently available from local sources, if that information is
required for costing purposes;
• For each potential project, a checklist showing the grant application requirements that have
already been fulfilled and a list of additional items that will need to be completed before a
grant application can be submitted.
• A list of applicable state and federal grant opportunities and corresponding deadlines, along
with information on the application deadlines for the larger state and federal grant programs
during 2012 and 2013;
Refined Scoring Criteria
In order to develop the project short-list for Task 5, scoring criteria 3, 5, 6 and 7 from Task 4
were reviewed and refined as follows:
• Criterion 3: Potential to provide impacts (positive or negative) within the halo or
nearshore zones:
Anticipated change in net loads
Site Score
Small to no effect
0
Moderate increase or decrease (+ or -)
+5, -5'
Large increase or decrease (+ or -)
+10, -10'
Note: ' A positive score will be given to projects likely to cause a net reduction in the
pollutant loads that are discharged to halo or nearshore zones. Negative scores to projects
likely to cause a net increase in loads discharged to those zones. Scoring based upon the
following: weed wrack prevention technologies = 0 (no net change); culverts and circulation
pumps = negative, magnitude based upon current impairment level of canal; backfilling =
positive, magnitude based upon potential improvement due to removal of sediments pre-
backfill or covering of sediments.
36
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
• Criterion 5: Public funding support
amec
It was determined that this criterion should be removed from Phase I, because the potential
for public funding support would be equal for the canals included on the Task 5 short-list.
• Criterion 6: Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support
(scored from 0 to +10)
It appears likely that potential restoration sites would not be competitive for external grant
funds if they have not yet upgraded their wastewater treatment systems, since funding
agencies could be hesitant to approve grant funding for more advanced water quality
restoration work at sites where these basic water quality improvement steps have not yet
been taken. Therefore, canals were given a score of zero for this criterion, and eliminated
from the Task 5 rankings, if they are not yet connected to the wastewater treatment system.
Canals receiving direct, piped discharges of untreated stormwater (e.g., Key Haven 471)
were also given a score of zero, regardless of their wastewater treatment status. Canals
that are currently connected to the wastewater treatment system and had no visible
untreated stormwater outfalls were given a score of 10.
• Criterion 7: Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals
(scored from 0 to 10)
Current data availability (percentage of data
Site Scare
necessary to prepare grant proposals, permit
applications, etc.
Little or no data available
0
Approximately 50% of necessary data
+5
are currently available
Almost 100% of necessary data
+10
are currently available
Short -List of Potential Restoration Projects
The results of the Task 5 scoring process are summarized in Table 5.1. The scoring sheets for
each canal are included in Appendix A.
37
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Table 5.1. Task 5 Canal Prioritization List (higher overall score = higher priority).
Subdivision Name
GIS Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall
Number
Technologies
Task 5 Score
Wynken, Blynken and
Primary=weed wrack
Nod
78
loading prevention;
45.3
secondary=backfilling
Backfilling and/or
Cross Key Estates
45
pumping to increase
41.6
circulation
Marathon
223
Weed wrack loading
39
prevention
Culvert maintenance
Bay Point
433
(plus evaluation of
37.8
adequate culvert size)
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
35.6
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
32
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert.
Boot Key Harbor
243
Depth information will be
32
required to evaluate if
backfilling is appropriate.
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
30.1
Circulation pump
Key Haven
471
(reduction in stormwater
26.8
loading is also
appropriate)
Lake Surprise - Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
26.7
Cove
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
25.8
38
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
The sites ranked 1 through 3 in Table 5.1 were selected for engineering evaluation of
restoration options. These included:
1. Wynken, Blynken and Nod, Rock Harbor — GIS Canal Number 78
2. Cross Key Estates, Key Largo — GIS Canal Number 45
3. Marathon — GIS Canal Number 223
An attribute table from a portion of the GIS database, a site condition summary, and aerial
photographs for each these canals is included in Appendix B.
Restoration Project Summaries
Project Number: 1
Project Name: Wynken, Blynken and Nod (Canal ID: 78)
Project Type: Design, permitting, construction, construction management, and
monitoring for weed gate system and removal of organics
Description of Project Area
Canal 78 is located in the Wynken, Blynken & Nod neighborhood in Key Largo, Florida
immediately off of US-1 at Mile Marker 96. The canal is located within the halo zone of Water
Body Identification (WBID) 6006A. Halo Zone WBID 6006A is defined by the waters located
within 500 meters of the shoreline of Key Largo.
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6006A as being impaired for nutrients, in particular total nitrogen and total
phosphorous. However, the December 2008 RAD also demonstrated that the WBID should be
classified as category 4b, indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the
waterbody will achieve compliance with water quality criteria based on management activities
that have been undertaken. In the case of WBID 6006A, implementation of advanced
wastewater treatment throughout the watershed is expected to achieve the required water
quality criteria for nutrients. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December 2011
indicated that the WBID is impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO impairment was not
assigned a cause, since water quality monitoring did not identify concentrations of total nitrogen,
total phosphorous, or biochemical oxygen demand that exceededwater quality criteria.
The canal system within the Wynken, Blynken & Nod subdivision was assessed on May 9,
2012. Water quality was determined to be poor based on DO measurements collected just
below the water surface and at 11 feet below the water surface that exhibited concentrations of
2.3 mg/L and 3.3 mg/L, respectively. These values are below the FDEP standard for impaired
water bodies of 4.0 mg/L. The total canal depth was noted as approximately 22 feet. The canal
was also noted to be impacted by weed wrack which accumulated at the ends of the finger
canals. The decay of the accumulated organics in the weed wrack will utilize DO,potentially
leading to sediment anoxia and enhanced hydrogen sulfide production.
39
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality issues within this system were identified as (1) prevention of
additional weed wrack from entering the canal; (2) removal of accumulated organic sediments;
and (3) reduction in canal depth to eliminate the deep stagnant water column. To keep
additional organics (weed wrack) from entering the canal a physical weed wrack gate in
conjunction with an air weed wrack gate would be added to the entrance of the canals. The
removal of existing accumulated organics was evaluated. The cost estimation for was based on
an assumed uniform canal depth of 22 feet, and an accumulated organics depth of 3 feet over
1/3 of the canal bottom. The organics are assumed to be non toxic. Specific canal profile data
and accumulated organics data are required for a more detailed cost estimate for this site.
Backfilling of the canals was also evaluated assuming backfilling to a depth of 6 feet. Backfill
material was assumed to be A-3 classified material and or clean construction debris from
approved contractors. Clean construction debris is currently unavailable; therefore cost
estimates for backfill only reflect purchased backfill. Depending on when the backfilling
recommendations are implemented potential future backfill maybe available from the Cudjoe
Key wastewater treatment plant.
Specific canal profile data and accumulated organics data are required for a more
detailed cost estimate for this site.
An existing aeration system is present in this canal system and engineering evaluation to
determine if it can be optimized to a recirculation system could also considered as a means to
improve water quality with less cost.
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
A weed wrack gate is proposed for this project which is intended to provide a barrier to prevent
floating or suspended organic material (weed wrack) from entering and accumulating within the
canal. The gate is designed to allow for navigational access during normal operation.
In addition to installation of a weed wrack gate, removal of organic material is also proposed for
this canal.
Description of Conceptual Schematic for Preferred Remedial Alternative:
• Two 10-foot stretches of physical weed wrack gate shall be constructed on either side of the
channel at the entrance of the canal.
• Each of the 10' physical weed wrack gate sections will be comprised of (2) wooded or
aluminum pilings that will be placed approximately 9' apart. High- Strength Fiberglass Panels
will be affixed to the pilings in order to block the flow of weed wrack. The fiberglass panels shall
be oriented such that as mean sea level 2.5' of fiberglass remains above the water and 2.5' of
40
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
fiberglass remains below the water. Plastic netting shall be affixed to both sides of the fiberglass
and offer continued weed wrack guarding above and below the limits of the fiberglass.
:.Plastic Netting..:. .. .
Fiberglass Panels
Plastic Netting
I
Fiberglass
s
Mears Sea Level
Mean Sea Level
The area between the ends of the physical weed wrack gate shall contain a 36' wide air
weed wrack gate. Coarse bubble diffusers will be spaced at an interval of 2 feet. Diffuser
mounts will be used to affix the coarse bubble diffusers to the air weed wrack gate lateral.
The air weed wrack gate lateral line will rest approximately 1 foot above the bottom surface
to allow for maximum boating clearance.
A 36 URAI pump in conjunction with a 5hp motor will provide air through 3" PVC pipe to the
air weed wrack gate. Calculations for determining these pump specifications were based on
an assumed diffuser depth of 9'. This estimate is subject to change based on detailed
design data.
• Removal of accumulated organics within the yellow shaded area of the Wynken, Blynken
and Nod Conceptual Schematic figure (refer to Appendix C) should be completed using
41
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
amec
Hydraulic Dredge. The cost for the disposal of the removed organics is based upon off -
island disposal. Recycling options can be investigated.
Assumptions for Conceptual Schematic:
• Depth of accumulated organics: 3 feet over 1/3 of the canal bottom
• The bottom of the canal is 22 feet below the surface of the water at low tide.
• The accumulated organics are non toxic and may be dewatered for transplant.
• Air weed wrack curtain lateral at a depth of 9 feet (or less, if canal backfilling is conducted).
• Pump efficiency = 80%
Wynken, Blynken and Nod Preferred Alternative Cost Estimate
Weed Wrack Gate
Item
#
UoM
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Air/
Physical Seaweed Gate
$
19,462.00
$ 19,462.00
Subtotal
$ 19,462.00
Contingency
20%
$ 3,892.00
Sub total
$ 23,354.00
Construction
Administration
$ 5,000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 10,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 38,354.00
42
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
Organics Removal
Item
Unit of
Approx
#
Measure
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
Removal of Organics-
1
LS
1.0
Mobilization
$ 50,000.00
$
50,000.00
Removal of Organics-
2
CY
3,376.4*
Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
33,764.00
Removal of Organics-
3
CY
3,376.4*
Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
43,893.00
Transportation and
Disposal of
3
Ton
319.1*
Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
15,315.00
Subtotal
$
142,972.00
Contingency
20%
$
28,594.00
Sub total
$
171,566.00
Construction
Administration
$
25,735.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$
42,892.00
Total
TOTAL
$
240,193.00
Notes: * preliminary estimate only — value needs field verification
The approximate cost to operate the air gate is $280/month assuming diffuser discharge depth
of 9 feet.
Potential Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
The proposed restoration project consisting of the construction of a weed wrack gate and
removal of the accumulated organics by hydraulic dredging in selected areas will help to
address the existing water quality impairments. The removal of the accumulated organics will
help increase the DO within the waterbody by reducing the sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
imposed by the accumulated organics. Given the highly organic nature of the sediment within
the waterbody, it is possible that the SOD could be as high as 20 g/m2/d (Davis 1950). Given
the area of the waterbody of 10,000 m2 and an assumed natural SOD of approximately 5 g/m2/d,
it is estimated that a reduction in oxygen consumption of 15,000 g/d (33 Ib/d) could be realized
from removing accumulated organic material and preventing additional accumulation through
the use of weed gates.
43
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report amec
June 2012
The proposed weed wrack gate addresses the DO impairment in a twofold manner. The gate
will help to reduce future accumulations of organic sediments in the benthic zone of the
waterbody, resulting in a prevention of high SOD as previously described. The gate will also
help to aerate incoming and outgoing water. Therefore, the aeration induced by the air weed
wrack gate will help to increase the DO of both the waterbody and the nearshore waters.
Potential Grant Programs
The project identified above is expected to have a positive effect on water quality within the
canal and surrounding areas. Traditionally, water quality and habitat restoration efforts have
focused on restoration of natural ecosystems impacted by human activity. Grant programs are
typically geared toward these types of projects. For this reason, it will be critical to emphasize
that projects aimed at water quality improvements within Keys canal systems are likely to
provide equally significant improvements to the overall marine environment. By reducing areas
of stagnation and hypoxia, canal water quality improvement projects will help to minimize
nutrient releases from accumulations of decaying organic material and loss of suitable habitat
for aquatic species. The following grant opportunities have been identified as potential funding
sources for this project:
Required
Project
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
Objective
Project
Match
Stage
9
Section 319
EPA/FDE
May, 2013
40%
Reduce Non-
Conceptual
point pollution
TMDL
EPA/FDE
Mar/Jul/
50%
Reduce Non-
60% Design /
P
Nov
point pollution
Permitted
2012/2013
South Florida
USFWS
April, 2013
0% required
Habitat
Conceptual
Coastal Program
(>0%
Restoration
encouraged)
Community-
TNC /
April, 2013
o
50%
Habitat
Conceptual
Based Matching
NOAA
Restoration
Grants Program
National Coastal
Habitat
Wetlands
USFWS
June, 2013
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
Conservation
Grant Program
Urban Waters
EPA
January,
$2,500
Water Quality
Conceptual
Small Grants**
2013
Improvement
Notes: * 2013 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
44
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Phase 1 Summary Report
June 2012
Grant Application Checklist
amec
Many of the requirements for the above grant programs are similar, although each grant
application has its own format and should be reviewed and completed on an individual basis.
Grant application guidance for each program is available in Appendix D. The elements below
are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple applications:
L Applicant Contact Information
L Project Location Details
L Type of Project
u Project Objective
u Project Synopsis
u Project Description
u Expected Project Benefits
u Project Work Plan
u Project Monitoring Plan
u Project Budget
u Amount Requested
Information Necessary to Complete Applications
u Applicant Matching Amount
u Cooperating Partners/Match
u Benefits to Community
u Community Involvement
u Project Milestones
u Project Deliverables
u Project Team
u Required Forms
u Literature Cited
u Appendices
The project information in the checklist above can be obtained largely from the information
provided in the project descriptions provided in the preceding section. More detailed information
such as project milestones and deliverables will need to be developed from the available project
information, and specific formats vary by grant program. Detailed budget information will need
to be provided using the individual grant applications. Information on the project team will also
need to be assembled prior to submittal.
Items that are included with this submittal can be utilized to provide the following checklist items:
Q
Project Location Details
Q
Type of Project
Q
Project Objective
Q
Project Synopsis
Q
Project Description
Q Expected Project Benefits
Q Project Work Plan
Q Project Budget
Q Project Milestones
Items that will need additional information to complete include the following:
0
Applicant Contact Information
0
Community Involvement
0
Project Deliverables
0
Project Team
0
Amount Requested
0
Project Monitoring Plan
0
Applicant Matching Amount
0
Required Forms
0
Cooperating Partners/Match
0
Literature Cited
0
Benefits to Community
0
Appendices
45
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
The agency applying for the grant will need to determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for the project. Requirements for funding match range from 0%
to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing more than the minimum amount.
Community involvement and benefit is also generally encouraged and will need to be
considered when completing the applications.
Most applications require only conceptual plans and a reasonably well -developed budget.
However, the TMDL grant program requires projects to be at the 60% design stage, permitted,
and ready for construction. The projects described herein would need to be developed
accordingly to meet the TMDL grant program requirements.
Specific forms are required for many of the applications and they provide specific details about
how the information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very
similar among grant programs.
Project Number: 2
Project Name: Cross Key Estates (Canal ID: 45)
Project Type: Further data collection and design evaluation
Description of Project Area
Canal No. 45 is located within the Cross Key Estates neighborhood in Key Largo at Mile Marker
106. The canal is located within the halo zone Water Body Identification (WBID) 6006A. Halo
Zone WBID 6006A is defined by the waters located within 500 meters of the shoreline of Key
Largo.
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6006A as being impaired for nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus).
However, the December 2008 RAD demonstrated that the WBID should be classified as
category 4b; indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation of a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the waterbody will
reach the water quality criteria based on management activities that have been undertaken. In
the case of WBID 6006A, the management strategy anticipated to allow the waterbody to meet
the water quality criteria is the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment throughout
the watershed. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December 2011 demonstrated that
the WBID is also impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO impairment was not assigned an
anthropogenic cause, however, because water quality monitoring did not identify concentrations
of total nitrogen, total phosphorous, or biochemical oxygen demand that exceeded water quality
criteria.
During the May 9th, 2012 assessment, water in the canal displayed no visible flow and had a
greenish tint indicating the presence of a phytoplankton bloom. Water quality was categorized
as fair to poor based on DO concentrations measured just below the water surface and at 8 feet
below the surface, which equaled 5.5 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L, respectively. The DO measurement
collected at 8 feet below the water surface is below the FDEP standard (4.0 mg/L) for impaired
46
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
water bodies. The canal depth was noted to be greater than 20 feet. Weed wrack accumulation
was not identified as a water quality issue in this canal system. However, organic material was
noted in the sediment sample collected at the far end of the canal.
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality management issues within this system were identified as (1) the need
to reduce canal depth to eliminate the deeper stagnant portions of the water column (2) removal
of accumulated organic sediments prior to backfilling; and (3) pumping to increase circulation.
Removal of accumulated organic sediments and backfilling the canals to a low tide depth of 6
feet would help to improve water quality. Other potential restoration technologies for the ends of
the finger canals would include enhanced water circulation through pumping.
Backfilling was evaluated as the technology to reduce the canal depth. Any accumulated
organics should be removed prior to backfilling. Cost estimation for removal of accumulated
organics and backfilling for the Cross Key Estates canal system is based on an assumed
uniform canal depth of 20 feet, backfilling to a depth of 6 feet and an assumed depth of
accumulated organics of 3 feet over 1/3 of the canal bottom. The organic muck is assumed to
be non toxic. Backfill material will consist of A-3 classified material and or clean construction
debris from approved contractors. Clean construction debris is currently unavailable; therefore a
conservative cost estimate for backfill reflects only purchased backfill. Depending on when the
backfilling recommendations are implemented potential future backfill maybe available from the
Cudjoe Key wastewater treatment plant. Specific canal profile data and accumulated
organics data are required for a more detailed cost estimate for this site.
Due to the long length (820 meters) and large number of finger canals (10) in this canal system,
additional technologies may be necessary to increase circulation in the most inland portions of
the canals. Installation of pumps at the end of each finger canal was selected for a preliminary
cost estimate. Further engineering evaluation is required to determine if this is the most
effective design. Pumping costs would be approximately $50/month/finger canal assuming a
desired flushing time of approximately 4 days. It may be necessary to install the pump on an
existing dock or construct a pump mount to facilitate unobstructed water conveyance.
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
No preferred alternative is presently offered for this canal system. Lack of engineering design
data, uncertainty in the design assumptions, and high estimated costs are the basis for this
decision.
Description of Conceptual Schematic Utilized for Remedial Costing:
Removal of accumulated organics within the yellow shaded area of the Cross Key Estates
Conceptual Schematic figure (refer to Appendix C) will be performed via hydraulic dredge.
47
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Shaded region will be backfilled to a depth of 6 feet at low tide using sand fill and or if available
clean construction debris.
To increase circulation at the far ends of each finger canal, water could be circulated using a
pump and 1 hp motor discharged through 4" PVC pipe.
Assumptions for Conceptual Schematic:
• Depth of accumulated organics: 3 feet over 1/3 of canal bottom
• The bottom of the canal is 20 feet below the surface of the water at low tide
• The accumulated organics are non toxic and may be dewatered for transplant.
Organics Removal
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics-
Mobilization
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
2
CY
17,037*
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic
Dredge
$ 10.00
$170,370.00
3
CY
17,037*
Removal of Organics-
Dewatering
$ 13.00
$ 221,481.00
3
Ton
1,610*
Transportation and Disposal of
Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$77,280.00
Subtotal
$ 519,131.00
Contingency
20%
$ 103,826.00
Sub total
$622,957.00
Construction Administration
$ 41,530.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 51,913.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 716,400.00
Note: * preliminary estimate only — value needs field verification
48
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Backfiling
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Pric
Cost
1
Ton
377,614.5
Backfill
$ 3.00
$1,132,844.00
2
Ton
377,614.5
Trucking- Backfill
$ 6.25
$2,360,091.00
4
DAY
486.5
Backhoe and Operator
(B-66)
$ 660.88
$ 321,485.00
5
DAY
486.5
Barge rental and
Operator 30'x90'
$294.20
$ 143,114.00
6
DAY
486.5
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$ 2,796.00
$1,360,114.00
7
EA
5.0
Sediment Control (boom)
100 feet
$ 3,300.00
$ 16,500.00
Subtotal
$5,334,148.00
Contingency
20%
$1,066,830.00
Sub total
$6,400,978.00
Construction
Administration
$ 128,020.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 160.024.00
Total
TOTAL
$6,689,022.00
Pumping to enhance circulation
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
10.0
Furnish and Install
Seawater Pump
$
16,047.00
$ 160,470.00
Subtotal
$ 160,470.00
Contingency
20%
$ 32,094.00
Sub total
$ 192,564.00
Construction
Administration
$ 10,000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 25,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 227,564.00
49
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Assumptions for Cost Estimate:
- Cost estimates for backfill will reflect only purchased backfill
- Assuming specific weight of backfill 115lb/cf
- Assumed pump efficiency of 62%
- Pumps would be installed at available locations on seawalls or docks
Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
The proposed restoration project consisting of the removal of the accumulated organics by
hydraulic dredge in the selected areas, backfilling, and the implementation of circulation pumps
will help to address the existing water quality impairments.
The removal of the accumulated organics will increase the DO within the waterbody by reducing
the sediment oxygen demand (SOD) imposed by the accumulated organics. Given the highly
organic nature of the sediment within the waterbody, it is possible that the SOD could be as high
as 20 g/m2/d (Davis 1950). Given the area of the waterbody of 44,000 m2 and an assumed
natural SOD of approximately 5 g/m2/d, it is estimated that a reduction in oxygen consumption of
660,000 g/d (1,455 Ib/d) could be realized from the hydraulic dredging activities.
The implementation of circulation pumps will help the waterbody achieve improved levels of DO
by providing greater exchange with nearshore waters. Each pump was sized so that a flushing
time of 4 days would be realized in accordance with EPA recommendations (Boozer 1979). It is
proposed that the increased flushing, a 170 percent increase above the existing flushing
induced by tidal forces, will increase the water quality within the waterbody to approximate that
of the nearshore waters.
Grant Programs
None proposed at this time
Project Number: 3
Project Name: Marathon (Canal ID: 223)
Project Type: Design, permitting, construction, construction management, and
monitoring for weed gate system
Description of Project Area
Canal 223 is located on Vaca Key in the City of Marathon, Florida northwest of the Marathon
County Airport at Mile Marker 51. The canal is located within the halo zone of Water Body
Identification (WBID) 6011A. Halo Zone WBID 6011A is defined by the waters located within
500 meters of the shoreline of Vaca Key.6006A.
50
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Impairments Addressed by the Project
The December 2008 Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) developed for the Northern Keys
identified WBID 6011A as being impaired for nutrients, in particular total nitrogen and total
phosphorous. However, the December 2008 RAD demonstrated that the WBID should be
classified as category 4b; indicating that the waterbody is impaired but that the implementation
of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is not required because it is expected that the
waterbody will reach the water quality criteria based on management activities that have been
undertaken. In the case of WBID 6011A, the management strategy that is anticipated to allow
the waterbody to meet water quality criteria is the implementation of advanced wastewater
treatment throughout the watershed. An update to the RAD that was prepared in December
2011 demonstrates that the WBID is also impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). The DO
impairment was not assigned an anthropogenic cause, however, because water quality
monitoring did not identify concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorous, or biochemical
oxygen demand that exceeded water quality criteria.
During the May 15, 2012 assessment, the canal water displayed no visible flow and was visually
determined to be moderately clear with algae suspended in the water column. The DO
measurements collected just below the water surface and at 6 feet below the water surface
exhibited concentrations of 3.7 mg/L and 3.9 mg/L, respectively; which is below the FDEP
standard for impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L. Aerial photographs show large weed wrack
mats blanketing the northern part of the canal. The weed wrack is likely to accumulate in the
canal system and sink to the bottom. There the accumulated organics will decay and utilize DO,
potentially leading to anoxia and enhanced hydrogen sulfide production. The canal narrows as
it continues south, and terminates in a large stagnant basin which adds to the restriction in
natural flushing. The canal depth was noted to be approximately 8 feet.
Remedial Technology Evaluation
The primary water quality management issues for this canal system were identified as (1)
prevention of additional weed wrack from entering the canal; and (2) pumping to enhance
circulation. The relatively shallow canal depth of 8 feet makes it a poor candidate for backfilling.
Based upon the shallow depth, it was also assumed that a large volume of accumulated
organics was not present. However, field verification through bottom profiling and sediment
characterization should be performed to verify this assumption.
To keep additional organics (weed wrack) from entering the canal a physical weed wrack gate in
conjunction with an air weed wrack gate would be added to the entrance of the canals. To
increase circulation in the southern part of the canal, water should be pumped from near the
entrance of the canal into the south end of the canal. It may be necessary to install the pump on
an existing dock or construct a pump mount to facilitate unobstructed water conveyance from
Florida Bay to the south portion of the canal. This pumping application was sized to provide
improved circulation for the area south of the mangrove constriction. Post -installation monitoring
would be helpful to assess the effectiveness of the implemented water quality treatment
technology.
51
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
A conceptual schematic of the evaluated technologies is included in Appendix C along with
estimated costs for each technology. The costs were utilized to assist in final selection of a
preferred alternative.
Preferred Remedial Alternative
A weed wrack gate is proposed for this project which is intended to provide a barrier to prevent
floating or suspended organic material (weed wrack) from entering and accumulating within the
canal. The gate is designed to allow for navigational access during normal operation.
Description of Conceptual Schematic:
Two sections of physical weed wrack gate shall be constructed on both sides of the air weed
wrack gate. The physical weed wrack gate on the NE side of the air gate will be approximately
80 feet in length and the physical weed wrack gate on the SW side of the air gate will be
approximately 15 feet.
Physical weed wrack gate sections will be comprised of wooded or aluminum pilings that will be
placed approximately 10' on center. High- Strength Fiberglass Panels will be affixed to the
pilings in order to block the flow of weed wrack. The fiberglass panels shall be oriented such
that as mean sea level 2.5' of fiberglass remains above the water and 2.5' of fiberglass remains
below the water. Plastic netting shall be affixed to both sides of the fiberglass and offer
extended weed wrack guarding above and below the limits of the fiberglass.
- : Tlastfc Netting.:. .. .
Mean Sea Level
Fiberglass Panels
52
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals
June 15, 2012
Plastic Netting
i Sea Level
amec
The gap between the ends of the physical weed wrack gate shall contain a 30' air weed wrack
gate. Coarse bubble diffusers will be spaced at an interval of 1.5 feet. The universal diffuser
mounts will be used to affix the coarse bubble diffusers to the air weed wrack gate lateral. The
air weed wrack gate lateral line will rest approximately 1 foot above the bottom surface to allow
for maximum boating clearance.
A 36 URAI pump in conjunction with a 5hp motor will provide air through 3" PVC pipe to the air
weed wrack gate. Calculations for determining the pump specifications were based on an
assumed diffuser depth of 7' which is 1' above the given depth of the canal bottom. This
estimate is subject to change based on detailed design.
Marathon 223 Preferred Alternative Cost Estimate
Physical and Air Weed Wrack Gate
Item
#
Units
Approx
Qty
Item
Unit Price
Cost
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install
Physical/ Air Weed
Wrack Gate
$
42,747.00
$ 42,747.00
Subtotal
$ 42,747.00
Contingency
20%
$ 8,549.00
Sub total
$ 51,296.00
Construction
Administration
$ 8,000.00
Final Design and
Permitting
$ 15,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 74,296.00
53
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Assumptions for Cost Estimate:
-Assumed Motor efficiency of 85%
Monthly costs for the air weed wrack gate are approximately $220/month assuming diffuser
discharge depth of 7 feet.
Benefits of Proposed Restoration Project
The proposed restoration project consists of the construction of a weed wrack gate to help
address the existing water quality impairments. The proposed weed wrack gate addresses the
DO impairment in a two -fold manner: by preventing the accumulation of organic material in the
benthic zone of the waterbody; and by helping to aerate incoming and outgoing water.
Grant Programs
The project identified above is expected to have a positive effect on water quality within the
canal and surrounding areas. Traditionally, water quality and habitat restoration efforts have
focused on restoration of natural ecosystems impacted by human activity. Grant programs are
typically geared toward these types of projects. For this reason, it will be critical to emphasize
that projects aimed at water quality improvements within Keys canal systems are likely to
provide equally significant improvements to the overall marine environment. The following grant
opportunities have been identified as potential funding sources for this project:
Required
Project
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
ObjectiveSta
Project
Match
g e
Section 319
EPA/FDE
May, 2013
40%
Reduce Non-
Conceptual
point pollution
TMDL
EPA/FDE
Mar/Jul/
50%
Reduce Non-
60% Design /
P
Nov
point pollution
Permitted
2012/2013
South Florida
USFWS
April, 2013
0% required
Habitat
Conceptual
Coastal Program
(>0%
Restoration
encouraged)
Community-
TNC /
April, 2013
o
50%
Habitat
Conceptual
Based Matching
NOAA
Restoration
Grants Program
National Coastal
Habitat
Wetlands
USFWS
June, 2013
50%
Restoration
Conceptual
Conservation
Grant Program
54
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Required
Project
Required
Grant Program
Agency
Deadline*
Minimum
Objective
Project
Match
Stage
g
Urban Waters
EPA
January,
$2,500
Water Quality
Conceptual
Small Grants**
2013
Improvement
Notes: * 2013 deadlines are estimated and programs resources are not guaranteed
** This grant applies only if project is considered a demonstration
Grant Application Checklist
Many of the requirements for the above grant programs are similar, although each grant
application has its own format and should be reviewed and completed on an individual basis.
Grant application guidance for each program is available in Appendix D. The elements below
are provided as a quick reference to assist with assembling multiple applications:
L Applicant Contact Information
L Project Location Details
L Type of Project
L Project Objective
u Project Synopsis
u Project Description
u Expected Project Benefits
u Project Work Plan
u Project Monitoring Plan
u Project Budget
u Amount Requested
Information Necessary to Complete Applications
u Applicant Matching Amount
u Cooperating Partners/Match
u Benefits to Community
u Community Involvement
u Project Milestones
u Project Deliverables
u Project Team
u Required Forms
u Literature Cited
u Appendices
The project information in the checklist can be obtained largely from the information provided in
the project descriptions provided in the preceding section. More detailed information such as
project milestones and deliverables will need to be developed from the available project
information. Specific budget information will need to be provided using the individual grant
formats. Information on the project team will also need to be assembled prior to submittal.
Items that are included with this submittal can be utilized to provide the following checklist items:
Q Project Location Details
Q Type of Project
Q Project Objective
Q Project Synopsis
Q Project Description
Q Expected Project Benefits
Q Project Work Plan
55
Q Project Budget
Q Project Milestones
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Items that will need additional information to complete include the following:
0 Applicant Contact Information
0 Project Deliverables
0 Amount Requested
0 Applicant Matching Amount
0 Cooperating Partners/Match
0 Benefits to Community
0 Community Involvement
0 Project Team
0 Project Monitoring Plan
0 Required Forms
0 Literature Cited
0 Appendices
The agency applying for the grant will need to determine the amount of matching funds and
cooperating partners available for the project. Requirements for funding match range from 0%
to 50%, and additional points may be awarded for providing more than the minimum amount.
Community involvement and benefit is also generally encouraged and will need to be
considered when completing the applications.
Most applications require only conceptual plans and a reasonably well -developed budget.
However, the TMDL grant program requires projects to be at the 60% design stage, permitted,
and ready for construction. The projects described herein would need to be developed
accordingly to meet the TMDL grant program requirements.
Specific forms are required for many of the applications and they provide specific details about
how the information must be formatted. Generally, however, the information requested is very
similar among grant programs.
References Cited
Davis, W.S. 1950. Brief History of Sediment Oxygen Demand Investigations; in Hatcher, K.J.
Sediment Oxygen Demand. Institute of Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Athens,
Georgia.
Boozer, A. C. 1979. A Review of the Impacts of Coastal Marina Siting, Construction, and
Activities as Related to Water Quality Considerations, Publication No. 001-79, South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Field and Analytical Services,
Division of Biological and Special Services, Columbia, SC.
56
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Task 6. Adaptive management process
Background
The objective of the task is to identify the steps that can be used to periodically assess the
effectiveness of the restoration and management actions, measure progress toward goals,
report that progress to stakeholders and funding entities, and (when necessary) redirect efforts
in more productive directions.
Because of the short timeline available for Phase 1 of this project, the purpose of Task 6 is to
provide a preliminary description of the adaptive management process in condensed form. It is
assumed that a more comprehensive summary, appropriate for inclusion in a Keys -wide master
plan, will be developed in Phase 2 of the project if funding becomes available.
A key role of adaptive management is to provide resource managers, administrators and
stakeholders a logical framework in which technical information can be collected and used to
guide management actions. The purpose is to target the use of limited resources in ways that
ensure program effectiveness (NRC 2011). Adaptive management also seeks to improve
coordination between strategy and operations, and ensure that scientific and engineering
information is well -coordinated with decision -making and decision -support activities. EPA
(2008) describes it as a "cycle of active strategy development, planning, implementation, and
evaluation" that allows an entire resource management program to "learn and change based on
the outputs of the adaptive management process".
The U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Commerce (DOI and DOC 2009), in a report
providing recommendations on steps that could be taken to improve the Chesapeake Bay
management effort, have summarized the process as follows:
• Define Programmatic Goals
• Plan and Prioritize — Management strategies and actions will need to be planned and
prioritized to meet the adopted goals. Monitoring should begin prior to implementation or
enhancement of management actions so baseline conditions are documented.
• Implement — Policies and actions are implemented through coordinated partner efforts
that effectively align resources.
• Monitor -- Monitoring is critical to document changes in ecological conditions, tracking of
management actions, and progress toward performance measures.
• Evaluate — Indicators are used to synthesize monitoring data and assess changes in
ecological and socioeconomic elements. Evaluation includes assessing effectiveness of
management actions to achieve desired outcomes, adequacy of supporting science
(models, monitoring, and research) to predict and detect ecosystem change, and
partnership capacity to implement programs and actions.
• Adjust — Based on the outcomes of the evaluate step, both short- and long-term
adjustments may need to be for management actions and partnership performance.
57
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
Short-term adjustments (1 year or less) may be made to management actions or
strategies or partnership capacity to implement programs. Longer -term adjustments (1
year or more) may include modifying goals and management strategies and adjusting
long-term monitoring programs.
The recommended process is summarized graphically in Figure 6.1.
Refine goals and indicators
t Ecoloareat
Socioeconomic
Pc�rtncrshrp
performance
GOALS
ADJUST
� —
— — --- — --- — -
PLAN and PRIORITIZE
1�
r
+ L:aals
+ Slr�rteyies
�
• Policies
a Strategies
• Ac:fiort5
�
1
a Pry:dices
* Science
e prinrit,ze
+ Snor, and
\
Rctiorls
king term
�
• Locatien-9
• nusources
6 Align partner
�k
rc-30ur{:CS
M1
EVALUATE
��
j IMPLEMEI�IT
* Actrotl5
o Coordinate Gartner
o Ecosys-lern Change
+ Science
activities and resOLFrces
for sufficient
+ Partnership performaw"o
unpleme afion
• � arferly anj annually
MONITOR
Actions
$ Ecosystem C ange.
r Partnership
performancq
Figure 6.1. Adaptive management framework. (Source: DOI and DOC 2009)
For an ecosystem -scale program, DOI and DOC (2009) also note that the adaptive
management framework will depend on supporting science and engineering elements,
including:
58
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
• Observations and monitoring — provide the raw data that form the basis for all other
science elements and adaptive management. Monitoring and observations are needed
to define the status of ecosystem integrity, prepare models to forecast ecological
conditions and test management scenarios, and document changes in management
actions and ecosystem condition.
• Information management — ensures that the observations and monitoring data are of
sufficient quality to be used for all the science applications, are accessible in databases
to ensure long-term integrity, and systems are in place to provide rapid access to and
application of the information.
• Assessment and research — monitoring data are assessed to define the extent of
problems and track changes over time. Research is conducted to understand and
explain the ecological conditions, examine the effectiveness of potential solutions, and
develop models to test hypotheses and forecast outcomes of different management and
socioeconomic scenarios.
• Indicators — selection of a full suite of variables to that can be measured and analyzed
is crucial so scientists, engineers and managers can track ecological, socioeconomic
and institutional trends and compare them to the objectives. The development of a clear
set of measurable indicators and benchmarks allows tracking of restoration progress and
the ability to report back to the public.
• Communication Process — provides the assessment and synthesis of scientific
information to improve decision making for federal and state managers and policy
makers, local governments and land -use planners, elected officials, and the general
public. Products for Federal and state resource managers would be focused on helping
them adjust management policies and actions based on an improved understanding of
the ecosystem and effectiveness of management actions. Products for local
governments and land -use planners would provide implications for a balance between
economic growth and a sustainable ecosystem. Products for the general public would
help them understand how their economic and social decisions affect, and derive benefit
from, ecosystem goods and services. Products for elected officials would provide
implications of how laws, policies, and budget decisions affect sustainability and
ecosystem conditions.
• Decision support tools — improved decision -making will depend on delivering the
information to each audience in a timely and user-friendly fashion.
Potential Application to the CMMP
The CMMP will obviously be carried out on a much smaller scale, and with substantially fewer
resources, than the ecosystem -level management program described and evaluated by DOI
and DOC (2009). However, the adaptive management approach shown in Fig. 1 can be used to
guide CMMP development and implementation. This could be done by including the following
components as explicit elements of the CMMP:
59
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
1. Define Programmatic Issues and Goals
Phase 1 of CMMP development has identified a preliminary set of priority management
issues and goals:
o Issue 1. Water quality — Eutrophication and DO -Related Issues
Goal: Restore and maintain water quality conditions in canal systems to levels
that are consistent with the State's current water quality criteria for Class III
waters, whose designated uses include human recreation as well as the
propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
wildlife.
o Issue 2. Water quality — Organic Matter (e.g., Weed Wrack)
Goal: In canal systems whose location make them susceptible to receiving large
inputs of seagrass leaves and other `weed wrack' from nearshore waters, install
cost-effective barriers to prevent or substantially reduce those inputs to levels
that do not contribute to eutrophication, hypoxia, or other water and sediment
quality issues within the canals.
o Issue 3. Sediment quality
Goal: Reduce the incidence of anoxia, problematic sulfide levels and sediment
toxicity in canals where these issues are present, and prevent these issues from
developing in canal systems where they are not yet present.
o Issue 4. Habitat quality
Goal: Protect aquatic and benthic canal habitats that currently support native
flora and fauna, and improve water and sediment quality in other areas to levels
that are capable of supporting them.
o Issue 5. Public Involvement in the Canal Management Process
Goal: Create and maintain a constituency of informed, involved citizens who
understand the environmental and economic issues involved in managing
manmade canal systems
These can be used to guide management actions for the remainder of Phase 1. If
funding becomes available, they can be fleshed out and further refined in Phase 2 of the
program.
2. Plan and Prioritize
An initial list of potential project sites and site -specific restoration concepts were
developed using the information collated and evaluated in Task 1 of this project, as well
as site visits that included visual inspections of canals and spot -collection of depth
information and hydrographic (e.g., DO, water temperature, pH, and conductivity) data.
Two groups of canals were selected for site visits:
11
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
o Canals in subdivisions that were identified as water quality problem areas by a
working group convened by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
in 1996; and
o Canals known to have moderate to severe water quality problems associated with
weed wrack.
In the subdivisions identified as water quality problem areas by the 19996 SFWMD
working group, canals likely to have the most serious water quality problems, due to
poor designs that limit circulation and flushing, were identified by examining aerial
photographs and information from the project geodatabase. A site visit was then
performed to confirm that the most problematic canals within each subdivision had been
identified. To identify canals with potential weed wrack issues, high -resolution aerial
photographs taken during the winter of 2006 were examined to identify those with
significant organic flotsam coverage at the water surface.
The two groups of canal systems that were evaluated using site visits are summarized in
the Task 4 summary above, in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Those canals were then evaluated
and prioritized using the criteria described in Task 4 and Task 5. The criteria were used
in Task 5 to develop an initial short-list of project sites and restoration activities for which
implementation funds may be sought during the next few years.
3. Implement
The operational elements of the CMMP will be guided by the leadership and direction of
the members of the WQPP Steering Committee and its Canal Subcommittee, which
include the following partners:
• U.S. EPA
• U.S. National Park Service
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection
• South Florida Water Management District
• Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
• Florida Department of Health
• Three individuals in local government in the Florida Keys
• Three citizens knowledgeable about the WQPP
In order to implement the CMMP, the state and federal agencies represented on the
WQPP and the Canal Subcommittee will need to work cooperatively with the local
governments and homeowner associations who will be the lead entities carrying out
canal restoration and management activities. The results of those activities can then be
evaluated by the Steering Committee and Canal Subcommittee, and the program's
goals, objectives, strategies and operational procedures adjusted, using the steps
outlined below.
61
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
4. Monitor
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), monitoring is critical to document changes in
environmental conditions and tracking of management actions and progress toward
goals. Currently, it appears that no monitoring programs are in place to track changes in
water, sediment or habitat quality within canal systems in the Florida Keys. Baseline
bathymetric information also appears to be unavailable for most canals. For Phase 1 of
the CMMP, a GIS-based database developed through a companion project, and the very
basic field work that was done as part of Task 4 of this project, have been the primary
sources of available information. If Phase 2 of the CMMP is funded, the development of
a more robust monitoring program should be one of its primary work elements.
5. Evaluate
Evaluation includes assessing the effectiveness of management actions to achieve
desired outcomes, adequacy of available information to detect changes in the managed
resources, and the capacity of the management program and its partners to implement
programs and actions. If Phase 2 of the CMMP receives funding, the development of a
defined evaluation process should be one of its work elements. Formal evaluations
using that process could then be performed periodically (e.g., every three to five years)
by the Canal Subcommittee, with the results reported to the WQPP Steering Committee
to provide regular updates to administrators and stakeholders on the effectiveness of the
canal management program.
6. Adjust
As noted by DOI and DOC (2009), the outcomes of the evaluation step can be used to
develop short- and long-term adjustments for management actions and partnership
performance. Short-term adjustments may be made to management actions or
strategies or partnership capacity to implement projects. Longer -term adjustments may
include modifying goals and management strategies and adjusting long-term monitoring
programs. As with the monitoring and evaluation steps, if Phase 2 of the CMMP is
funded, the development of a defined adjustment process that will be applied to the
canal management process should be included as one of its work elements.
62
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
References Cited
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2009.
Strengthening Science and Decision Support for Ecosystem Management in the Chesapeake
Bay and its Watershed. A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202f of Executive Order 13508. DOI
and DOC. Washington, DC. 58 pp.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Strengthening the Management,
Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA, Annapolis, MD. 122
PP.
NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in
the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC. 241 pp.
63
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX A
Task 5 Score Sheets
64
Task 5 Priority Canal Ranking
GIS Canal
Potential Restoration
Overall Score from
WWT
Subdivision Name
Number
Technologies
Task 5
present
Rank'
Primany Weed wrack
Wynken, Blynken and
loading prevention;
78
45.3
Nod
secondary treatment
backfilling
yes
1
Backfilling and/or Pumping
Cross Key Estates
45
41.6
to increase circulation
yes
2
Weed wrack Loading
Marathon
223
Prevention primary
39
technology.
yes
3
Culvert Maintenance (plus
Bay Point
433
evaluation of adequate
37.8
culvert size)
yes
4
Little Venice
200
Circulation pump
35.6
yes
5
Gulfrest Park
437
Circulation pump
32
yes
6
Increase in circulation by
pumping or culvert. Depth
Boot Key Harbor
243
information will be
32
required to evaluate if
backfilling is appropriate.
yes
7
Little Venice
196
Backfilling
30.1
yes
8
Circulation pump
Key Haven
471
(reduction in stormwater
26.8
loading is appropriate)
yes
9
Lake Surprise - Sexton
24
Culvert to Lake Surprise
26.7
Cove
yes
10
Hammer Point
93
Backfilling
25.8
yes
1 11
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Bay Point
Canal Number
433
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Culvert Maintenance (plus evaluation of
Technologies
adequate culvert size)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to+10)
Score
5
Comments
DO was measured as < 4 mg/L.
end is
Existing culvert on north end is blocked.
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or habitat
quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or issues
ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring values from 0to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
Efficiency of existing culvert once
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
maintained should be evaluated to
further assess the effectiveness
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in shortterm increased discharges
of waterfrom within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
4.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a value
of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
761ots would incur benefit.
5) Public funding su pport (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to+10, with
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
-10 indicating 100%opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%agreement
with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase
scoring only canals where W WT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
Yes, this subdivision has WWT
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes W WT present = 10 or No W WT Not Present = 0.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0to+10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
30%plans can be prepared with existing
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
8
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from Oto +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Currently there is land access in a vacant
lotfor maintenance equipment;
however, mangroves have colonized the
culvert area and will require pruning.
Score
37.8
Overall Score
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
soot Key Harbor
Canal Number
243
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Increase in circulation by pumping or
culvert. Depth information will be
required to evaluate if back -filling is
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
appropriate.
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to+10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
DO was <4 mg/L but> 2 mg/L. Sediment
sample could not collected. No odors or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10.
Weed wrack problems reported. very
significant algae problem.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
Width of canal system and low energy at
the canal mouth will limit effectiveness of
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
pumping. Closet location for a culvert is
not the best location hydrologically.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
10
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
A score of 10 was given due to heavy
recreational use.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100%opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present= 10 or No WWT Not Present=
0.
Yes, WWT Present.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
Comments
30%plans can be prepared with existing
data for pumping of improved circulation.
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
back -filling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
1
Multiple pumps will be needed and will
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
increase costs. Culvert installation is
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
Comments
under us #1 and the distance tothe
adjacent canal to provide flow through is
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
at quite a distance and will require
extensive access coordination and
difficulty in construction.
Overall Score
Score
32
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Cross Key Estates
Canal Number
45
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
ned
zero will be assigned) )
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Backfilling and/or Pumping to increase
circulation
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
DO < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
This is a long deep canal (-20 feet) which
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
has good fish population with the deeper
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
zone and far ends of the canal only
showin water quality impacts. Length
g 9 Y � P �
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
and shape of the canal will limit
effectiveness.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
0
Backfilling would improve the water
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
quality dischargingto the nearshore
zone. Circulation pump could negatively
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
impact the WQ in the nearshore zone for
a short time interval.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
8.6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
243 parcels will incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where W WT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes W WT present = 10 or No W WT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
ranges from 0 to+10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
Comments
30% plans can be prepared with existing
data for pumping of improved
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
circulation. Insufficient data is available
to evaluate backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
S
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
No major apparent issues
Overall Score
Score
41.6
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Gulfrest Park
Canal Number
437
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
Do was measured as > 4 mg/L but > 2
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
mg/L) at 6 foot depth (- bottom of
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
canal).
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
3
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
Low energy at mouth will limit
effectiveness of pump circulation
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of waterfrom within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
108 lots would incur benefit.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available for 30%
plans for circulation pumping.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Currently there is land access to install a
pump; may need to install electric, no
apparent permitting issues
Score
32.0
Overall Score
Weed wrack loading does not appear to
bean issue in this canal
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Hammer Point
Canal Number
93
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Backfilling
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
0
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
DO was> 4.0 mg/L
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
Due to relatively high existing DO little
improvement is anticipated.
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
Backfilling should improve water quality
dischargingto the nearshore zone.
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
1.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
30 parcels will incur benefit
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0
to +10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where W WT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes W WT present = 10 or No W WT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to+10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
No permitting issues but backfill would
have to be barged in from Florida Bay.
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Sents core
25.5
Overall Score
Comments
m
The canal system currently displays fair
to good water auality.
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Key Haven
Canal Number
471
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump (reduction in
stormwater loading is appropriate)
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to+10)
Score
5
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
DO was <4 mg/L but> 2 mg/L. Minor sea
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
Comments
weed loading issue. Organic muck
present in bottom sediments which ddid
not have an odor. Poor ciculation is major
cause of poor water quality.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
Long canal length and irregular shape is
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
limiting circulation. An increase in
circulation through pumping will assist in
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
removing stormwater loading; high
energy at mouth will assist in flushing.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from+6 to+10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
7.8
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10 would
indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected. Analogous
Comments
negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative effects on
users.
188 parcels will incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100%opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0to
+10)
Score
0
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present= 10 or No WWT Not Present=
0,
Yes, WWT. Stormwater pipes discharge
into this canal.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30%plans can be prepared with existing
data. No survey data or as-builts plans are
available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
2
Multiple pumps are likely to be required
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
due to numerous stormwater pipe
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
Comments
outfalls into the different fingers of the
canal system. Access for multple pumps
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
will be difficult due to density of homes;
electric likely required. no apparent
permitting issues.
Overall Score
Score
26.5
Comments
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Lake Surprise - Sexton Cove
Canal Number
24
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Culvert to Lake Surprise
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to+10)
Score
0
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
of above the canalcanal4 mg/L at the furthest point
of .
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
4
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
Culvert cannot be located at the best
location to increase flushing
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to+10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
7.7
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
187 parcel lots would incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present= 10 or No WWT Not Present=
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
30%plans can be prepared with existing
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
0
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of
access. Scoring ranges from 0 to+10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
Extensive mangrove and seabed areas
would have to be disrupted to get the
culvert out to the main channel
Score
26.7
Overall Score
Water quality appeared fairly good so
Comments
that the improvement would be mininal
and the environmental impact of
installing the culvert would be significant.
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Little Venice
Canal Number
196
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Backfilling
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
2
The canal was observed to be deep;
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
however, the canal displayed good flow
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
and DO concentrations above the FDEP
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
standard for impaired waters of 4.0
mg/L.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
Backfilling would improve the conditions
of the sediment
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Comments
Backfilling would improve the water
quality discharging to the nearshore
zone.
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4.1
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
61 lots on canal
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
3
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
Insufficient data is available to evaluate
backfilling feasibility.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
Access to the canal will not be difficult
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
and there were no observed
environmental permitting issues noted
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
during the assessment
Score
30.1
Overall Score
Comments
Canal 196 displayed good water quality
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Little Venice
Canal Number
200
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
zero will be assigned)
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Circulation pump
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
5
The canal was observed to be S feet
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
deep; displayed low DO I<4.0> 2.0
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
mg/L), and although the water flows
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
under the roadwaythe flushing appears
restricted.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
5
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
Comments
increase in circulation will help improve
water quality; however, the low energy
at the mouth will limit effectiveness
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
-2
Increasing flow through the canal could
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
result in short term increased discharges
of water from within the canal of poorer
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
WQthan the nearshore zone
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
3.6
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
53 lots on the canal system would incur
benefit with improvement
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30%plans can be prepared with existing
data.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
7
No observed environmental permitting
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
Comments
issues noted during the assessment; site
access for a pump appears available but
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
will have to be confirmed
Score
35.6
Overall Score
The energy at the mouth is the
Comments
controlling factor for the circulation in
this canal
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
marathon
Canal Number
223
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of zero
ned
will be assigned) )
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Weed wrack Loading Prevention primary
technology.
1) Severity of problem (scored from Oto +10)
Score
10
DO was <4 mg/L but> 2 mg/L. Significant
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
Weed wrack loading issue. Organic muck
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
present in bottom sediments which had
hydrogen sulfide odor.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
6
Preventing weed wrackfrom entering the
Scoring values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to
canal will improve water quality. Narrow
+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection within
the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that
Comments
middle section will prevent rapid flushing
after loading reduction. Addition of a
would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
circulation pump may be needed.
Evaluation of organic muck thickness and
additional remedial benefit of its removal
needs to be performed.
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
0
Values from 0 to +5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
Comments
Weed wrack prevention would have no
effect on nearshore zone.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
0
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have negative
effects on users.
17 parcels will incur benefit.
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to+10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property owners
and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding support
for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10 to +10,
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
with -10 indicating 100%opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating 100%
agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
Yes, WWT.
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
30%plans can be prepared for weed
curtain with existing data. No survey data
or as-builts plans are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
6
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues, mitigation
requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty of access.
Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in implementation
and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
on one id width, presence to mangroves
on one side of mouth, and site access for
equipment are all issues.
Score
39.0
Overall Score
Comments
This canal has a restrictive narrow middle
section that will limit natural flushing
Scoring criteria for potential restoration sites
Area Name
Wynken, Blynken and Nod
Canal Number
76
(For a criterion that cannot be scored due to a lack of relevant information, a value of
ned
zero will be assigned) )
Potential Restoration
Technologies
Primany Weed wrack loading prevention;
secondary treatment backfilling
1) Severity of problem (scored from 0 to +10)
Score
7
DO was < 4 mg/L but > 2 mg/L at 1 and
Scoring is based upon whether the problem (which may involve water, sediment or
11 feet below water (canal depth is 22
habitat quality) is considered nuisance or serious, with values for nuisance problems or
Comments
feet). Weed wrack gets trapped at the
issues ranging from 0 to 5 and values for serious problems or issues ranging from 6 to 10
end of the canals due to poor circulation
related to 90 degree bends, collects
garbage, and has an odor.
2) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the project canal (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
7
Scoring values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6
to+10 represent above -average to high potential, for improvement and/or protection
within the project canal. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects
that would have deleterious effects within the project canal.
Comments
preventing Weed wrack from getting into
the canal will greatly improve the water
quality
3) Potential to provide improvement and/or protection in water, sediment or habitat
quality within the halo or nearshore zone (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
2
Weed wrack loading prevention would
Values from 0 to+5 represent low to moderate potential, while values from +6 to +10
represent above -average to high potential, to provide improvement and/or protection in
the halo or nearshore zone. Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for
Comments
have no effect on nearshore; backfilling
would improve discharge to nearshore
projects that would have deleterious effects within the halo or nearshore zone.
waters.
4) Public benefit (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
4.3
The public benefit criterion is related to the number of users affected by the proposed
project. A value of 0 means few or no users would be affected by the project, while a
value of+5 means a moderate number of users would be positively affected. A+10
would indicate that a very large numbers of users would be positively affected.
Comments
Analogous negative scores (0 to -10) can be applied for projects that would have
negative effects on users.
65 parcels would incur benefit
5) Public funding support (scored from -10 to +10)
Score
Willingness of local governments, homeowner associations, or individual property
owners and commercial establishments along the canal to provide some level of funding
support for the proposed restoration or remediation project. Scoring ranges from -10
Comments
Funding to be evaluated after ranking
to+10, with -10 indicating 100% opposition, 0 indicating neutrality, and +10 indicating
100% agreement with providing some level of funding support.
6) Likelihood of receiving external (e.g., grant -based) funding support (scored from 0 to
+10)
Score
10
Estimated likelihood that the proposed project would be eligible and competitive for
partial or complete funding through grants or other external funding sources. For Phase I
scoring only canals where WWT has been implemented will be considered for the final
Comments
scoring and selection. Scoring is either Yes WWT present = 10 or No WWT Not Present =
0.
Yes, WWT.
7) Availability of data to prepare project designs and grant proposals (scored from 0 to
10)
Score
7
Current availability of data and technical information that would be necessary to prepare
design drawings and other scientific or engineering materials for the proposed project to
the extent that would be necessary to apply for external grants, permits, etc. Scoring
Comments
ranges from 0 to +10, representing the estimated percentage (0 to 100%) of the needed
30%plans can be prepared with existing
information that is currently available or could be obtained quickly and at minimal cost.
data. No survey data or as-builts plans
are available.
8) Project "implementability" (scored from 0-10)
Score
B
This criterion accounts for factors such as cost, complexity of permitting issues,
mitigation requirements, and potential complications with existing utilities or difficulty
of access. Scoring ranges from 0 to +10, with 0 indicating significant difficulties in
implementation and 10 indicating relative ease of implementation.
Comments
No issues evident; however backfilling
will have to be done from a barge
e
Overall Score
Score
45.3
Comments
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX B
Attribute Table, Site Condition Summaries, and Aerial Photographs
for Task 5 Selected Canals
65
\
\
\
W.
>
o
a
[
/
>
\
\
)
)
o
)
z
/
7
\f}
[\_}
°f
:
«
*\
\
>
>
\
\
0){
}
0
;
0
;
o
;
n
m°
\
\
\
\
\
\
\(\
@
\
>
>
>
_
0 0
0
\�\
:\\
2
=
=f
za�»E
2
/
a
y/
[
�
)\
\
g
)Er
9
j(m
3�
\
\
>
s
\00
\(
\\\
\
\
\
W.
>
o
a
[
/
>
\
\
)
)
o
)
z
/
7
0
\
\
\
j
(
7
2»E`2�
E2
® [
\(D
f+=J7(D
_
)(D
(D
ET
o
.
.D
0
\
0
\
`/
ƒ/
(
0)
co
\\
\/
J
S
\
»
\
(
\\
/ }
/_
(\
&
`
\(
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Canal Condition Summary
Winken, Blynken, & Nod
Canal ID: 78
Canal No. 78 is located within the Winken, Blynken & Nod neighborhood on Key Largo.
The canal system within the Winken, Blynken & Nod subdivision was assessed on May
9, 2012. AMEC's database listed canal No. 78 as having fair water quality. There may
be a HOA associated within this subdivision. Field personnel confirmed the presence of
sewers within the neighborhood. The surrounding land use for canal No. 78 is
comprised of older mobile homes and newer single family homes. Canal No. 78
discharges into Rock Harbor at one location. The canal system displayed a slight odor.
There was a 4 inch thick seaweed mat at the end of the assessed canal finger.
The canal was measured 40 feet wide and 22 feet below the water surface deep. Depth
was measured from the water surface to the bottom. The canal banks were observed to
be vertical seawalls. Canal walls were made of coral rock.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter from an
elevated road above the canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured at two
depth intervals, just below the surface and at 11 feet below the water surface. DO
concentrations were measured below the FDEP standard for impaired water bodies of
4.0 mg/L for both measured intervals
During the May 9, 2012 qualitative assessment, the water at the end of the canal
displayed no visible flow. Field personnel noted that the water within the canal was very
dark and displayed low visibility.
Sediment was not sampled at this location due to logistics.
Field personnel observed no existing structures within canal No. 78 that would affect the
flow of water in and out of the system. Field personnel noted the presence of multiple
aerators within the canal system. There were no observed issues that would affect
obtaining a permit.
Water quality was determined to be poor based on the field assessment.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installation of a seaweed gate that would prevent the seaweed from entering into the
canal system and backfilling the canal to decrease the depth.
R. Jf
L " rr- �
4 J
f1
Source: FDOT, 2010 (aerial);
NRCS, 2010, AMEC, 2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
N 1 inch = 150 feet
78 ROCK HARBOR
0 37.5 75 150 Feet Drawn Date
DLA 05/24/2012 MIAMI, FL Figure
Checked Date j C Project # 6783-12-2396 9
WCL 05/24/2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Project Number:
6783-12-2396 Project Location: Monroe County
W inke,
Canal ID:
78 Database Ranking: Fair Key/Community: Blinken, &
Nod
Date: 5-9-12
Time:1240 Tidal Condition: High Tide (Slack) source: NOAA
Water depth (22'):
Water quality readings .
Monitoring
Depth
Temp (oC) Conductivity pH DO mg/I DO %Sat ORP
Location
ms/cm
End
0.25 m
27.59 50.43 8.11 2.34 35.7 -25.3
0.5 m
1m
1.5 m
2m
2.50 m
3m
End
3.5 m
27.24 50.64 8.21 3.3 49.8 -8
4m
4.5 m
5m
5.5 m
6m
6.5 m
7m
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Canal Condition Summary
Cross Key Estates
Canal ID: 45
Canal No. 45 is located within the Cross Key Estates neighborhood on Key Largo. The
canal system within the Cross Key Estates subdivision was assessed on May 9, 2012.
AMEC's database listed canal No. 45 as having poor water quality. There is a condo
association located within this subdivision. AMEC visually confirmed the presence of
sewers within the neighborhood. The surrounding land use for canal No. 45 is
comprised of residential homes. Canal No. 45 discharges into Blackwater sound at one
location. The canal system displayed no noticeable odor.
The canal was measured 40 feet wide and between 12 and 20 feet below the water
surface deep. Depth was measured from the side of the dock to the bottom of the canal.
The canal banks were observed to be vertical seawalls.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter at a boat
dock near the terminal end of a canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured at
two depth intervals. DO concentrations were measured above the FDEP standard for
impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L for the interval just below the water surface and below
the DO standard for the interval approximately 8 feet below the water surface.
During the May 9, 2012 qualitative assessment, the canal water displayed no visible flow
and was observed to have a green tint to the water column.
The sediment was sampled using a ponar dredge. The sediment sample consisted of
algae, shells, and decomposed organic matter. The sediment sample displayed a
distinct sulfurish odor.
There were no existing structures within canal No. 45 that were affecting the flow of
water in and out of the system. Field personnel did not observe the presence of any
treatment measures designed to enhance water quality within the canals. There were
no observed environmental issues that would affect obtaining a permit.
Water quality was observed to be fair to poor based on the field assessment. During a
subsequent visit to Cross Key Estates on May 23, 2012, the streets were flooded as a
result of a recent storm event.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installing a pump system to circulate water and backfilling.
5
IVA
a
rt
p� O
�
5 S
A
•a
Li
-
r
Source: FDOT, 2010 (aerial);
NRCS, 2010, AMEC, 2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
N 1 inch
= 300 feet
45 KEY LARGO
0 75
150 300 Feet Drawn
DLA
I Date
05/24/2012
MPAMP, FL Figure
Checked
I Date
a f ec Project # 6783-12-2396 4
WCL
05/24/2012
Project Number: 6783-12-2396 Project Location: Monroe County
Canal ID: 45 Database Ranking: Poor Key/Community: Cross Key
Estates 11
5-9-12 Time:1100 Tidal Condition: High Tide (Slack) source: NOAA
Water depth (20'):
Water quality readings:
Monitoring
Location
End
._.
Conductivity
®
.•
.•
�-
----
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Canal Condition Summary
Marathon (subdivision not provided)
Canal ID: 223
Canal No. 223 is located on Marathon. The canal system on Marathon was assessed
on May 15, 2012. Canal No. 223 was determined by aerial photographs as having a
potential seaweed loading issue. A neighborhood organization does not exist for this
subdivision. The surrounding land use for canal No. 223 is comprised of single family
homes and motels. Canal No. 223 discharges into Florida Bay at one location. The
canal system displayed no noticeable odor. Seaweed mats were observed floating
within the canal system at the time of the May 15, 2012 assessment and again during a
subsequent site visit on May 24, 2012. Representatives state that if the wind is
predominately out of the north for an extended period of time, the canal fingers will
accumulate substantial amounts of seaweed.
Canal measurements and parameters were collected near the inlet and at the terminal
end of the canal. Near the inlet, the canal was visually estimated at 100 feet wide and
measured 8 feet deep from the water surface. Depth was measured from the top of the
seawall to the bottom of the canal. The canal banks near the inlet were observed to be
vertical seawalls on one side and mangrove lined banks of the other. Seawalls are
present on both sides of the canal near the terminal end.
The water quality parameters were collected with a YSI multi -parameter meter from the
seawall near the inlet and at the terminal end of a canal finger. Dissolved oxygen (DO)
was measured at two depth intervals at each location. The DO concentrations were
measured below the FDEP standard for impaired water bodies of 4.0 mg/L for the depth
intervals just below the water surface and 6 feet below the water surface.
During the May 15, 2012 qualitative assessment, the canal water displayed no visible
flow and was visually determined to be moderately clear with algae suspended in the
water column.
The sediment was sampled using a ponar dredge. The sediment sample consisted of
silt, sand, seaweed, and algae. The sediment sample displayed a distinct sulfurish odor.
There were no existing structures within canal No. 223 that were affecting the flow of
water in and out of the system; however, the canal narrows severely in the middle which
will restrict flow. Field personnel did not observe the presence of any treatment
measures designed to enhance water quality within the system. The presence of
mangroves on one side of the canal may affect the ability to permit a treatment measure
within that area.
Water quality was observed to be fair based on the field assessment.
Possible treatment measures for enhancing water quality within the canal include
installing a bubble curtain or weed gate and a pump system that could improve
circulation near the terminal end of the canal.
r
41
0
or
Source: FDOT, 2010 (aerial);
NRCS, 2010, AMEC, 2012
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
N 1 inch = 200 feet
223 MARATHON
0 50 100 200 Feet Drawn Date
DLA 05/24/2012 MIAMI, FL Figure
Checked Date f C Project # 6783-12-2396 15
WCL 05/24/2012
ng
Mouth
Conductivity
no
------
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX C
Conceptual Design Calculations, Figures and Costs
e
Z#
X sox���zI:E
S
DNm
7 p A. 0.m El 3�-O Dup1i �'
m 3 T 3-n N� n y �'^E nmw��s
101 o Sr m
a
N �.,n
w a g,z
0
mom_ m
a
� � s fir -
+ } 4 ,
r .� `rIm
bib
Of
L� �
r
a
!
�\ v
y i
Notes:
1- Proja�rno: s7as122396
Explanation Features
ameC
2 Da[aSowoes_, ld1-95 Bing HYbnd Maps,
pump Outfa
p
d.dtma9ery:
3 Ttt'—pis intended [o be
"sad ror Planning purposes
Pump Location Intake
Monroe County
1Y Iris nota s�Nay.
Date. OU15/2012
� sea Water Pipe
Cross Key Estates
Prepared By. MM
a,eek.d Dyw2
Proposed Backfill Location
Conceptual Schematic
Q Removal of AccunI Organics
0
580
Feet
AIEI
oo gyve e. 1AW11H1-(11)1672345
L
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for WBN
Physical and Air Seaweed Gate
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Air/ Physical Seaweed Gat
$ 19,462.00
$ 19,462.00
Subtotal
$ 19,462.00
Contingency 20%
$ 3,892.00
Sub total
$ 23,354.00
Construction Administration
$ 5,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 10,000.00
Total
TOTAL
1 $ 38,354.00
Removal of Accumulated Orqanics
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics- Mobilization
$ 50,000.00
$
50,000.00
2
CY
3,376.4
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
33,764.00
3
CY
3,376.4
Removal of Organics-Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
43,893.00
3
Ton
319.1
Disposal of Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
15,315.00
Subtotal
$
142,972.00
Contingency 20%
$
28,594.00
Sub total
$
171,566.00
Construction Administration
$
25,735.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
42,892.00
Total
TOTAL
$
240,193.00
Backfillinq
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
Ton
83869.133
Backfill
$
3.00
$
251,607.00
2
Ton
83869.133
Trucking- Backfill
$
6.25
$
524,182.00
4
DAY
167.7
Backhoe and Operator (B-66)
$
660.88
$
110,855.00
5
DAY
167.7
Barge rental and Operator (30'x90')
$
294.20
$
49,349.00
6
DAY
167.7
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$
2,796.00
$
468,995.00
7
EA
2.0
Sediment Control (boom) 100 feet
$
3,300.00
$
6,600.00
Subtotal
$
1,411,588.00
Contingency 20%
$
282,318.00
Sub total
$
1,693,906.00
Construction Administration
$
84,695.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
101,634.00
Total
TOTAL
$
1,880,235.00
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Cross Key Estates
Pumpinq
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
10.0
Furnish and Install Seawater Pump
$ 16,047.00
$ 160,470.00
Subtotal
$ 160,470.00
Contingency 20%
$ 32,094.00
Sub total
$ 192,564.00
Construction Administration
$ 10,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 25,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 227,564.00
Removal of Accumulated Organics
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
LS
1.0
Removal of Organics- Mobilization
$ 50,000.00
$
50,000.00
2
CY
17,037.0
Removal of Organics -Hydraulic Dredge
$ 10.00
$
170,370.00
3
CY
17,037.0
Removal of Organics-Dewatering
$ 13.00
$
221,481.00
3
Ton
1 1,610.0
Disposal of Accumulated Organics
$ 48.00
$
77,280.00
Subtotal
$
519,131.00
Contingency 20%
$
103,826.00
Sub total
$
622,957.00
Construction Administration
$
41,530.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
51,913.00
Total
TOTAL
$
716,400.00
Backfilling
Item #
UoM
Approx Qty
Item
Unit rice In
Figures
Total Amount
1
Ton
377,614.5
Backfill
$ 3.00
$
1,132,844.00
2
Ton
377,614.5
Trucking- Backfill
$ 6.25
$
2,360,091.00
4
DAY
486.5
Backhoe and Operator (B-66)
$ 660.88
$
321,485.00
5
DAY
486.5
Barge rental and Operator (30'x90')
$ 294.20
$
143,114.00
6
DAY
486.5
Loader and Crew (B-3C)
$ 2,796.00
$
1,360,114.00
7
EA
5.0
Sediment Control (boom) 100 feet
$ 3,300.00
$
16,500.00
Subtotal
$
5,334,148.00
Contingency 20%
$
1,066,830.00
Sub total
$
6,400,978.00
Construction Administration
$
128,020.00
Final Design and Permitting
$
160,024.00
Total
TOTAL
$
6,689,022.00
Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Marathon 223
Pumping
Item #
UoM
pprox
Qty
Item
Unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Seawater Pump
$ 38,479.00
$ 38,479.00
Subtotal
$ 38,479.00
Contingency 20%
$ 7,696.00
Sub total
$ 46,175.00
Construction Administration
$ 8,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 25,000.00
Total
TOTAL
1 $ 79,175.00
Physical and Air Seaweed Gate
Item #
UoM
pprox
Qty
Item
Unit Price In
Figures
Total Amount
1
EA
1.0
Furnish and Install Physical/ Air Seaweed
Gate
$ 42, 747.00
$ 42, 747.00
Subtotal
$ 42,747.00
Contingency 20%
$ 8,549.00
Sub total
$ 51,296.00
Construction Administration
$ 8,000.00
Final Design and Permitting
$ 15,000.00
Total
TOTAL
$ 74,296.00
Appendix - Calculations
Cross Key Estates Pumping
T f=(T X V)/(V f +Vp)
Where:
Tf: Flushing Time (hrs)
Tx: Tidal Period (hrs)
V: Stored Water Volume (acre-feet)
Vf: Tidal Prism Water Volume (acre feet)
Vp: Volume Pumped (Acre ft)
Vp
Tx
V
Tf
Vf
Area
Depth
Tidal Range
18.8 acre-ft
Required Total Flow
12.5 hours
Number of Pumps
216 acre-ft
Required Pump Flow
96 hours
9.3 acre-ft
10.8 acres
20 feet
0.86 feet
httDI/tidesandcurrents. noaa.gov/tidesl0/tab2ec3d. html
Largo Sound, Key Largo
Length of pipe
1679 ft
45 degree elbows equivalent 4"PVC
5.1 ft
90 degree elbows equivalent 4"PVC
13.1 ft
# 45 degree elbows
6
# 90 degree elbows
1
Equivalent Pipe Length
1722.7 ft
Pipe Diameter
4 inches
Hazen Williams
z head loss
10 feet
friction loss
11.9 ft
Total Head
21.9
C 145
Hydraulic Horsepower Required
Power= HQ(SG)/(3956*pump efficiency)
Power 1.0 hp
Q 106.6 gal/min
Specific Gravity 1.025
Head 21.9 ft
Assumed Pump Efficiency 0.62
Assumed Motor Efficiency 0.85
Selected Pump Size 1 hp
Cost to Operate
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Coop 0.11 $/kW-hr
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Cost 0.09 $/hr
Cost (monthly) 63.23 $/month
1065.6 gal/min
10
106.6 gal/min
Marathon - Pumping
T f=(T X V)/(V f +Vp)
Vp
Tx
V
Tf
Vf
Area
Depth
Tidal Range
16.4 acre-ft Required Q
25 hours
72.8 acre-ft
96 hours
2.6 acre-ft
3.64 acres
20 feet
0.71 feet
http://tidesandcurrents. noaa.gov/tides10/tab2ec3d. html
Vaca Key, Marathon, FI
Length of pipe
1720 ft
45 degree elbows equivalent 4"PVC
5.1 ft
90 degree elbows equivalent 4"PVC
13.1 ft
# 45 degree elbows
0
# 90 degree elbows
7
Equivalent Pipe Length
1811.7 ft
Pipe Diameter
10 inches
Hazen Williams
z head loss
10 feet
friction loss
7.88 ft
Total Head
17.88 ft
C 145
Hydraulic Horsepower Required
Power= HQ(SG)/(3956*pump efficiency)
Power 6.92 hp
Q 926.23 gal/min
Specific Gravity 1.025
Head 17.88 ft
Assumed Pump Efficiency 0.62
Assumed Motor Efficiency 0.85
Selected Pump Size 60 hp
Cost to Operate
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Coop 0.11 $/kW-hr
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Cost 0.67 $/hr
Cost (monthly) 448.89 $/month
926.2 gal/min
Winken, Blynken, & Nod - Seaweed Gate
Depth below surface of bubble discharge
9.00
ft
depth from pump to bottom
16.00
ft
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
200.00
cfm
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
3.33
ft^3/sec
Area of 3" PVC pipe
0.05
ft^2
v=QA
4,074.37
ft/min
v=QA
67.91
ft/sec
acceleration head v^2/2g
71.60
ft
air static head
16.00
ft
pressure (acceleration)
0.04
psi
water pressure
3.90
psi
Total pressure
3.95
psi
Assumed Pump Efficiency
0.80
Assumed Motor Efficiency
0.85
Power= pQ/3.819* efficiency of pump
4.31
hp
Pump selected
5.00
hp
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Cooperative
0.11
$/kW-hr
Cost
0.42
$/hr
Cost (monthly)
279.24
$/month
Marathon - Seaweed Gate
Depth below surface of bubble discharge
7.00
ft
depth from pump to bottom
14.00
ft
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
200.00
cfm
Desired Airflow at 10' below waters surface
3.33
ft^3/sec
Area of 3" PVC pipe
0.05
ft^2
v=QA
4,074.37
ft/min
v=QA
67.91
ft/sec
acceleration head v^2/2g
71.60
ft
air static head
14.00
ft
pressure (acceleration)
0.04
psi
water pressure
3.03
psi
Total pressure
3.08
psi
Assumed Pump Efficiency
0.80
Assumed Motor Efficiency
0.85
Power= pQ/3.819* efficiency of pump
3.36
hp
Pump selected
5.00
hp
cost= (electricity*.7457kW/hp)*hp)/motor efficiency
Electricity Cost from Florida Keys Cooperative
0.11
$/kW-hr
Cost
0.32
$/hr
Cost (monthly)
217.81
$/month
Cross Keys Estates - Organics Removal
canal area
469,086.4
ft^2
assumed percent impacted by organics
33.0%
area to dredge
153,331.2
ft^2
assumed depth of accumulated organics
3.0
ft
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
459,993.6
ft^3
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
17,036.8
ydA3
Backfilling
area to backfill
469,086.4
ft^2
fill required (current depth -proposed depth)
14.0
ft
current assumed canal depth
20.0
ft
proposed depth
6.0
ft
Backfill required
6,567,209.2
ftA3
Backfill required
243,230.0
ydA3
for backfill assuming 1ydA3=1.5525 tons
specific weight = 115 Ib/cf
Backfill required
377,614.5 tons
Winken, Blynken, & Nod - Organics Removal
canal area
91,162.1
ft^2
assumed percent impacted by organics
33.0%
area to dredge
30,083.5
ft^2
assumed depth of accumulated organics
3.0
ft
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
90,250.5
ft^3
volume of accumulated organics to be removed
3,342.6
ydA3
Backfilling
area to backfill
30,083.5
ft^2
fill required (current depth -proposed depth)
16.0
ft
current assumed canal depth
22.0
ft
proposed depth
6.0
ft
Backfill required
481,335.9
ft^3
Backfill required
17,827.3
ydA3
for backfill assuming 1ydA3=1.5525 tons
Ispecific weight = 115 Ib/cf
Backfill required
I 27,676.8 tons
Monroe County Canal Management Master Plan
Task 5 Develop the Initial Short -List of Restoration Projects for Priority Canals amec
June 15, 2012
APPENDIX D
Grant Program Application Information
67
Community -Based Matching Grants Program
Grant Information
ANP PTMOSPHFA
TheNa'Ure
Conservancy
o p
a
z i
Protecting nature. Preserving life. sA
-Cp9grM1lENT �f �
Community -based Restoration Matching Grants Program
TNC Global Marine Team & NOAA Restoration Center
uest for Proposals — Due April 13, 2012
TNC-NOAA Community -based Habitat Restoration Grants
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) are pleased to request proposals for their restoration matching
grants program. This program is part of a national cooperative agreement between TNC's
Global Marine Team and the Community -based Restoration Program of the NOAA
Restoration Center.
The objectives of TNC and NOAA's Community -based Restoration Program (CRP) are
to bring together interested groups, public, private, tribal and non-profit organizations to
implement habitat restoration projects to benefit NOAA trust resources (coastal and
marine species and their habitats). This innovative program recognizes the significant
role that partnerships can play in making habitat restoration happen within communities,
and acknowledges that habitat restoration is often best implemented through technical
and monetary support provided at a community level. (For more information visit:
http:l/��w��.habitat.noaa. ovlrestorationlpro ramslcrplztml and
httpal�v��w.nature.or ourinitiatives/habitatsloceanscoasts/hor%weNvork/habitat-
restoration.xtnl).
Focus areas: NOAA and TNC are looking to support community -based restoration of a
diversity of habitat types and no habitats are excluded. We will consider any innovative
restoration project nationwide that supports NOAA trust resources, and particularly those
projects that have a multi -species benefit or emphasize Ecosystem -Based Management. A
focal area of particular interest, though not exclusive or limiting, is native shellfish
(bivalve) restoration projects.
Projects throughout all USA states and territories are eligible to compete for these grants.
Preference will be given to projects at priority sites identified through Marine
Ecoregional Assessments and other TNC priority setting approaches at the state and
territory level (contact TNC state or territory staff listed in Appendix II or NOAA/TNC
Partnership Coordinator, Boze Hancock, see below).
Match Requirements: The NOAA-TNC national partnership provides seed money to
individual projects that leverage funds and other contributions from the public and private
sector to implement locally important habitat restoration that benefits living coastal and
marine resources.
Non-federal match is required at the rate of 1:1. The 1:1 match can come from a variety
of (non-federal) public and private sources and can include in -kind goods and services
from project partners. Approved projects may use any unrecovered indirect costs as
match (see budget section below). Neither federal funds nor federal funds passed through
state agencies are eligible to be used as matching funds. Mitigation funds or other funds
mandated by a court action are also not eligible as match.
Global Marine Team Technical Support: As part of TNC's increased focus on
restoration, The Global Marine Team will work with project sites and regional programs
to leverage the impact of individual restoration projects through information exchange
and coordination across projects. We can offer site and regional practitioners our
expertise to assist with developing (i) projects aimed at shellfish restoration and the
restoration of nursery habitats nationwide, (ii) linking projects towards achieving regional
restoration success, and (iii) improving the measurement and monitoring of ecosystem
services provided by the habitats restored.
NOAA's Community -based Restoration Program (CRP) Technical Support:
Through NOAA's Restoration Center, CRP staff provides technical support to assist
project proponents in the development and implementation of sound coastal restoration
projects. Located strategically throughout the country (see Appendix 1), CRP field staff
are available, as needed, to provide site -specific guidance on activities including project
design and engineering, environmental compliance, and science -based project
monitoring. In addition, CRP field staff work to enhance community engagement and
collaboration among local entities to increase restoration success at the local and regional
level and coordinate and gain public recognition for restoration efforts.
Administrative Requirements: Awards are expected to be announced in June 2012.
Anticipated awards are contingent on notification of federal funding to The Nature
Conservancy. Upon notification of an award, projects will be assigned a TNC Global
Marine Team budget center number to use for project expenses, and will also be
informed as to required financial and programmatic reporting requirements. This
information will assist TNC in meeting Federal guidelines for reporting expenses and
project status on a semi-annual basis.
Proposal Requirements and Submission: Specifications for TNC-NOAA Community -
based Habitat Restoration Grants are detailed in the following pages. Proposals are due
by April 13, 2012. Submission by e-mail is preferred. Submission by hard copy will be
accepted if it is received by the close of business on the due date. If you submit a hard
copy, please also submit an electronic copy on CD, to:
Boze Hancock, TNC-NOAA National Partnership Coordinator
bhancock Inc.org (electronic submission is preferred)
The Nature Conservancy Global Marine Team
University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Campus
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
For questions about the grants program or proposals please contact Boze Hancock,
TNC-NOAA National Partnership Coordinator at 401-874-6121 (phone), or
bhancock/cijnc.or (email), or your local NOAA RC staff (Appendix 1).
If proposals are greater than 5MB please contact Boze Hancock regarding safe receipt of
large email files.
2
COMMUNITY -BASED HABITAT RESTORATION GRANTS 2012
Proposal Requirements
NOAA-TNC Partnership
The mission of The Nature Conscrvancv is to conserve the lands and -,\ aters on which all
life depends. To achieve its global mission, TNC has increasingly focused its efforts on
marine and estuarine conservation, an essential component of conserving global
biodiversity, and is growing rapidly with support and leadership from the Global Marine
Team. Effective conservation also requires us to explicitly consider and sustain the
ecological linkages among terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems.
TNC's conservation process has brought heightened awareness of coastal and marine
ecosystems and the many species that require these habitats during part of their lives.
This process has also highlighted the fact that many coastal and marine sites require
restoration (see Appendix IV) to function properly. As a result, TNC's Global Marine
Team has been vigorously promoting aquatic habitat restoration under the TNC/NOAA
partnership.
Grants
This year, typical grants will be in the range of $25,000-$85,000. This will be a
competitive process. The merits of each proposal will be weighed based on how closely
the project aligns with the national partnership's evaluation criteria (see below).
TNC and NOAA reserve the right to select a limited number of projects that have
demonstrated prior success with the proposed restoration technique and invite them to
prepare scaled proposals for up to $250,000 to achieve larger restoration outcomes.
Applicants are welcome to indicate if they consider that their proposal falls within this
category and if higher levels of matching funds may be available. Reference of prior
success and a brief (maximum 1 page) statement of the rationale for, and benefit of,
scaling up for larger restoration outcomes can be included as an appendix to the proposal.
This option will be considered only if sufficient funding is available.
Elements of Successful Proiect Proposals
Applicants should strive to meet as many of the following elements as possible (see also
selection criteria below):
Project is aligned with TNC's conservation planning framework. This means that
the project location falls within a TNC priority conservation area identified in an
Ecoregional Assessment or is identified as significant by alternative TNC
conservation priority assessments, as indicated by TNC state or territory chapters
(See appendix II). The assessment and TNC chapter and staff providing this
information should be noted in the proposal. [Note that these analyses are not
available in all U.S. and territorial geographies and therefore this can only be done
where the information is available. Contact your state or territorial chapter of TNC
(Appendix II) and / or Boze Hancock if you have questions regarding currently
available analyses.]
■ It should identify, or be prepared to address, short and long-term measures of
success (see Monitoring below).
■ Project implementation will result in tangible and measurable restoration of living
coastal and marine resources.
■ Project has clear restoration objectives, with measurable outcomes supported by a
well -crafted monitoring plan that meets NOAA's minimum monitoring requirements
(see Monitoring below).
■ Project involves significant community engagement and support that is tied to the
restoration activities. This should be done to ensure the community is aware of
restoration activities, feels ownership in specific projects and can voice any concerns
there may be, and to promote community stewardship.
■ Project concept involves substantial interaction with the NOAA Restoration Center
regional representative throughout its development. A list of the NOAA local
contacts is provided in Appendix 1.
■ Project involves partners.
■ Project demonstrates a reasonable assurance that the appropriate permits can be
obtained in a timely manner and the proposal includes a list of all necessary federal,
state, tribal and local permits required to complete the project.
■ Project demonstrates a reasonable assurance that there is ongoing protection for the
restoration investment (e.g., fishery closures, conservation easements, or other habitat
protection) .
■ Project must provide a minimum 1:1 non-federal match. Match above the required
1:1 level increases the competitiveness of proposed projects.
■ Budget justification with sufficient detail to evaluate project cost effectiveness.
Proposal Contents
If the project qualifies, a proposal should be submitted to Boze Hancock in TNC's Global
Marine Team. Proposals should be no longer than five pages (not including
attachments). You are also strongly encouraged to consult with a member of NOAA
Restoration Center regional staff' (see appendix 1), State or Territory TNC staff' (see
appendix 11), and Boze Hancock at TNC, early -on in the proposal preparation process.
M
Recommended format and minimum information to be provided in a project
proposal includes:
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATION
■ Project name
■ Contact person (address, phone, fax, email)
■ Congressional District(s) and Representative(s)
■ Regional NOAA contact staff person
■ Project abstract. I paragraph (3 to 5 sentence) Project Abstract succinctly outlining
major project goals and activities.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
■ Project location (include project zip code, and latitude/longitude if possible).
Relevant maps should be included as appendices with site location(s) specifically
indicated. Photos may also be included.
■ Description of the conservation status of the site in a marine ecoregional
assessment or other conservation assessment, and the TNC staff consulted.
■ Land ownership (public or private).
■ Anticipated benefits to species and habitat(s), including threatened and endangered
species.
■ A list of federal, state, tribal and local permits (e.g. see Permit Requirements and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements sections below).
■ A list of involved partners (include partner contributions, if applicable, even if not
used as match). Letters of partner support and pledges of match may be added to
the appendix.
■ Whether the project can be considered for increased funding and restoration
outcomes (has previously demonstrated success with the restoration technique and
is in a position to be scaled up for increased restoration outcomes, see `Grants'
above).
WORK PLAN
■ Start and end date. Two year projects are preferred, including implementation of
the restoration work and post -restoration monitoring.
■ Identification of goals and description of long-term measures of success.
■ Identification of measurable objectives/project-specific benchmarks for measuring
short-term success (see Monitoring below).
■ Restoration methodology and design considerations.
■ Timeline for anticipated actions (e.g., design and permitting phase, pre -restoration
monitoring, implementation, post -restoration monitoring).
■ Identification of the mechanism that will be used to ensure that necessary
environmental permits and consultations will be secured prior to the use of federal
funds.
■ Community engagement (may include hands-on training and restoration activities
undertaken by volunteers, sponsorship from local entities, either through in -kind
goods and services or cash contributions, public education and outreach, and/or
support from state and local governments).
■ A description of the anticipated outreach for the project (e.g., press releases,
presentations, papers, publications, workshops and trainings, if applicable).
PROJECTED BUDGET AND NARRATIVE (included as Appendix 1 to the proposal,
see Appendix III below for instructions)
■ Completed Projected Budget Template.
■ Grant amount requested.
■ Match amount being provided (non-federal is required).
Identify source(s) of match and indicate whether match is confirmed or pending.
Justification for fund use (by funding category as listed in projected budget) and a
budget narrative.
Also, at the end of the narrative include the total project budget amount if it is
greater than is the amount represented by the requested funds plus match and state
whether these additional leverage funds are federal or non-federal.
Evaluation Criteria
Projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
■ Technical merit, project feasibility and a relevant monitoring plan.
■ Extent to which project benefits living coastal and marine resources.
■ Extent to which the project will persist over the long-term, including any long-term
maintenance plan for ensuring long-term sustainability of the site.
■ Community involvement, education, and stewardship.
■ Whether NEPA, ESA, or other regulatory compliance issues may reasonably be
raised, and how likely they are to be expeditiously resolved to allow project
implementation to begin as planned.
■ Budget justification, project cost-effectiveness and availability of match.
■ Degree of support from, and involvement with, the regional NOAA contact person.
■ The extent of present and future support of TNC staff at these sites.
Preference will be given to projects containing:
■ A statement from the local TNC Chapter regarding the site as a conservation
priority in Marine Ecoregional Assessments or significance in alternative TNC
conservation priority assessment.
■ Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as identified by NOAA Fisheries, and areas within
EFH identified as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (see:
http:llsharpfin.nmfs.noaa.�ovlvvebsiteh�,F1-Z 1�Iapperlmap.aspx ).
■ Areas identified as critical habitat for federally or state listed estuarine and marine
species.
■ Areas identified as important habitat for marine mammals and turtles.
■ Areas identified as important nursery habitats.
■ Watersheds or other areas under special management by state coastal management
programs.
■ Other important commercial or recreational fish habitat.
■ Habitat supporting native bivalve shellfish and associated species. For projects
targeting habitats created by native bivalve species, quantification of a major
ecosystem service provided by the restoration may be included in the monitoring
plan.
Project Evaluation and Selection
Together, NOAA and TNC select projects that will receive support from this innovative
national partnership. This selection process will take place in two steps. In the first step,
TNC's Global Marine Team performs a preliminary review and narrows the project
proposals submitted to those that most closely meet the qualifications and evaluation
criteria. In the second step, NOAA Headquarters, the NOAA regional staff, and TNC will
then review, evaluate, and select final projects with the goal of funding 8-12 projects.
Following project selection
Reporting Requirements
After the selection process, the Grantees that are awarded funding shall be required to
file quarterly financial reports (for projects managed external to TNC), semi-annual
0
progress reports, a comprehensive final report, and a detailed monitoring plan. An
initial and final fact sheet will also be required with the first progress report and final
report for use by the project, TNC and NOAA.
Monitoring:
Applicants will be required to complete a `Restoration Performance Monitoring and
Evaluation' plan with parameters based on the NOAA restoration monitoring
guidelines (see: http:Ilw-,vxv era.noaa.iyovlinformationlmonitor.btmi). For each
selected parameter (minimum of two), a baseline value, reference value, and a
proposed target value must be identified prior to the implementation of restoration
efforts. The Conservancy and NOAA will work together with the grantee to
determine monitoring parameters and targets for successful applicants.
In addition to biological parameters, proposals may include relevant socio-economic
monitoring in the work plan to quantify societal benefits derived from the restoration.
Applicant's Permit Requirements
Applicants must provide where relevant a list and status (obtained, application filed,
when anticipate obtaining approval, or have not applied) of all necessary federal, state,
tribal and local permits required to complete the project and the appropriate regulatory
agency contact (name, title, phone) for each permitting agency. TNC will require copies
of permit and compliance documentation once the documentation is secured.
Applicants will be required to meet all local, state and tribal environmental laws and
Federal consistency requirements before project implementation.
National Environmental Policy Act Requirements
All proposals will be reviewed by NOAA regarding National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) compliance. All projects must comply with NEPA before TNC will
release funds. For more information on NEPA, please visit NOAA's website at
http:llxvN.nepa.noaa.ov.
Applicants will be required to provide detailed information on the activities to be
conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction
activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal
of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non -indigenous species, impacts to
endangered and threatened species, the presence of historic structures, and impacts to
coral reef systems) in order for NOAA to make a NEPA determination on each
proposal. For additional information on the NOAA Restoration Center NEPA
process, please visit the Environmental Compliance section at:
http alr� �v�� .habitat.noaa.ovlpartnerslranteeresources 11trn1
In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any
required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in
drafting an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is
required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and
implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse
environmental impacts of their proposal.
Once awards are approved we will also need to ensure that, for projects involving
volunteers, each project manager has a management plan for them (e.g., liability
waivers & procedures for conveying safety information to volunteers prior to
conducting field work).
7
SCUBA Safety
For any Self -Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving activities
described in the proposal, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that
SCUBA divers are certified to a level commensurate with the type and conditions of
the diving activity being undertaken. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the
recipient to ensure that any SCUBA diving activities under this award meet, at a
minimum, all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to
the type of SCUBA diving being undertaken.
Due Diligence
Non-profit applicants external to TNC will be asked to provide copies of documents
to ensure that the Awardee meets the criteria of a non-profit conservation
organization and that the Awardee meets appropriate standards of capacity,
competence, and financial accountability. These documents include but are not
limited to the following: a certificate of good standing, a list of the names of all of its
board members and principal officers, copies of Awardee's bylaws and articles of
incorporation and financial statements. Awardee agrees to notify TNC immediately
of any change in Awardee's corporate or tax status or operations, or if any official
judicial, legislative, or administrative proceeding is instituted against Awardee that
may affect the commitments and obligations agreed to in the award.
Appendix I
NOAA Restoration Center Staff
Northwest Region:
Oregon
Washington
Megan Callahan -Grant
Polly Hicks
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
Portland, OR 97232
PH: 206-526-4861
PH: 503-231-2213
FAX: 206-526-6665
FAX: 503-231-6265
Polly.Hicks(a(noaa. ov
N1e an.Callahan-Grant (noaa. ov
Jason Lehto
Megan Hilgart
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
Suite 1100
PH: 206-526-4670
Portland, OR 97232
FAX: 206-526-6665
PH: 503-231-6848
Jason.A.Lehtognoaa. aov
FAX: 503-231-2339
Me an.Hil,art ( noaa. wy
Laurel Jennings
7600 Sandpoint Way NE
Lauren Senkyr
Seattle, WA 98115-6349
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd.
PH: 206-526-4601
Suite 1100
FAX: 206-526-6665
Portland, OR 97232
Laurel.Jennin gsa( noaa.ov
PH: 503-231-2110
CELL: 503-347-0848
Paul Cereghino
FAX: 503-231-6265
510 Desmond Dr. NE
Lauren.Senkyrnnoaa.ou
Ste 103
Lacey, WA 98503
Alaska Region:
PH: (360) 753-4650
Erika Ammann
FAX:
222 West 7th Ave, Rm 517
CELL: (206) 948-6360
P.O. Box 48
Paul, R.Cerepahinonnoaa.tvov
Anchorage, AK 99513-7577
Or
PH: 907-271-5118
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
FAX:907- 271-3030
600 Capitol Way N.
Erika.Ammann c ,noaa.ov
Olympia,WA 98501-1091
PH: 360-902-2603
K. Koski
10656 Misty Lane
Juneau, AK
PH: 907-586-2609
K.Koski(u�noaa. ov
0
Southwest Region:
Dave Witting
Northern California
501 West Ocean Blvd
Leah Mahan
Suite 4400
1655 Heindon Rd.
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
Arcata, CA 95521
PH: 562-980-3235
PH: 707-825-5161
CELL: 562-508-3264
CELL: 707-599-2713
FAX: 562-980-4084
FAX: 707-825-4840
David.Wittinana noaa.dvov
Leah,Mahanna noaa.«ov
Pacific Islands Region:
Bob Pagliuco
Tia Brown
1655 Heindon Rd.
1601 Kapiolani Blvd.
Arcata, CA 95521
Suite 1110
PH: 707-825-5166
Honolulu, HI 96814
CELL: 707-834-2215
PH: 808-944-2259
FAX: 707-825-4840
FAX: 808-973-2941
Bob.Pagliuco a noaa.gov
Tia.Brown a noaa.gov
Natalie Cosentino -Manning
Southeast Region:
777 Sonoma Ave, Room 219-A
Florida
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6515
Daphne Macfarlan
PH: 707-575-6081
263 13m Avenue South
CELL: 707-206-1642
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
FAX: 707-575-6094
PH: 727-824-5384
Natalie, C-ManninL) a�,noaa < ov
CELL: 727-365-5419
FAX: 727-824-5390
Joe Pecharich
Daphne.Macfarlan2(noaa.Lyov
777 Sonoma Ave, Room 219-A
Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6515
Marti McGuire
PH: 707-575-6095
263 13m Avenue South
CELL: 707-583-3189
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
FAX: 707-575-6094
PH: 727-551-5785
Joe. Pechad chnnoaa. Lov
CELL: 727-744-7328
FAX: 727- 824-5390
Southern California
Marti.McGuire(anoaa.ov
Milena Vilj oen
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Sean Meehan
Suite 101
263 13m Avenue South
Carlsbad, CA 92011
St Petersburg FL 33701
PH: 760-431-9440 EXT. 227
PH: 727-824-5330
CELL: 562-221-5717
CELL: 727-3 85-5202
FAX: 760-431-9624
FAX: 727-824-5390
Milena.VilIoen c,,noaa.ov
Sean.Meehan rnoaa.�,
10
Tom Moore
263 13m Avenue South
St Petersburg FL 33701
PH: 727-551-5716
CELL: 727-647-653 8
FAX: 727-824-5390
Tom.Moorena noaa.(ov
Alabama
Meg Goecker
101 Bienville Blvd.
Dauphin Island, AL 36528
PH: 251-861-7509
Meg.Goeckera noaa.gov
Louisiana/Mississippi
Mel Landry
Louisiana State University
Sea Grant Building, Room 124H
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
PH: 225-578-7667
FAX: 225-578-7926
CELL: 985-492-0635
Mel, Landrygnoaa. Gov
Texas
Kristopher Benson
4700 Avenue U, Bldg 302
Galveston, TX 77551
PH: 409-766-3699
CELL: 409-621-6408
FAX: 409-766-3575
Kri stopher. B enson (anoaa. gov
North/South Carolina/Georgia
Howard Schnabolk
NOAA Coastal Services Center
2234 South Hobson Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29405-2413
PH: 843-740-1328
CELL: 843-312-9995
FAX: 843-740-1224
Howard, Schnabolknnoaa. Gov
Puerto Rico
Sean Griffin
USCG Air Station Borinquen
260 Guard Rd.
Aguadilla, PR 00605
PH: 787-667-7750
Sean, Griff ntanoaa. v
Northeast:
ME
Matt Bernier
NOAA Fisheries Maine Field Station
17 Godfry Drive
Suite 1
Orono, ME 04473
207-866-7409
CELL: 978-835-8868
FAX: 207-866-7342
Matthew.Berniern.noaa. dvov
VT/NH/MA
Steve Block
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
PH: 978-281-9127
CELL: 978-609-7653
FAX: 978-281-9301
Steve, Block c noaa.(-)ov
Matt Collins
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
PH: 978-281-9142
FAX: 978-281-9301
Mathias.Collins awnoag.ov
Eric W. Hutchins
55 Great Republic Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
PH: 978-281-9313
FAX: 978-281-9301
Eric, Hutchinsnnoaa. Gov
11
RI/CT/NJ/Buzzards Bay/MA/ Long
Mary Andrews
Island north shore/NY
410 Severn Ave 107A
James G Turek
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
28 Tarzwell Dr
PH: 410-267-5644
Narragansett, RI 02882
FAX: 410-267-5666
PH: 401-782-3338
Mary.Andrews(a�noaa.�ov
FAX: 401-782-3201
James.G.Turekanoaa.aov
Stephanie Westby
410 Severn Ave 107A
Bryan DeAngelis
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
28 Tarzwell Dr
PH: 410-295-3153
Narragansett, RI 02882
FAX: 410-267-5666
PH:401-782-3337
Stephanie.Westby�noaa, ov
FAX: 401-782-3292
Bryan.DeAn ,,elisnnoaa. ov
Virginia
Walter Priest
NJ/NY/PA/DE
VIMS P.O. Box 1346
Bethany Bearmore
Greate Rd., Route 1208
JJ Howard Marine Science Lab
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
74 Magruder Rd
PH: 804-684-7385
Highlands, NJ 07732
FAX: 804-684-7910
PH: 732-872-3069
Walter.Priestnoaa.s-)ov
FAX: 732-872-3077
Bethany.Bearrnorennoaa.aov
Great Lakes:
Terry Heatlie
Carl Alderson
4840 South State Road
JJ Howard Marine Science Lab
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719
74 Magruder Rd
PH: 734-741-2211
Highlands, NJ 07732
FAX: 734-741-2055
PH: 732-872-3087
Terry.Heatlie ( noaa.Lov
FAX: 732-872-3077
Carl.Aldersonnnoaa.aov
Julie Sims
4840 South State Road
Chesapeake Bay/MD/DE/PA:
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719
Richard L. Takacs
PH: 734-741-2385
410 Severn Ave 107A
FAX: 734-680-5671
Annapolis, MD 21403-2524
Julie, Sims c,noaa.gaov
PH: 410-267-5672
CELL: 301-346-8374
Restoration Center HO:
FAX: 410-267-5666
Summer Morlock
Rich.Takacsnno--
NOAA Fisheries
1315 East West Highway F/HC3
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-8677
Summer.Nlorlockna no-- Gov
12
Appendix II
TNC State and Regional Contacts
URL is provided where online reports provide initial guidance on TNC's priority
conservation areas
Hawaii
Oregon
Kim S. Hum
Jena Carter
Marine Program Director
Program Director
The Nature Conservancy, Hawaii Program
Oregon Field Office
923 Nuuanu Ave.
821 SE 14th Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96817
Portland, OR, 97214
Ph: 808-587-6244
Ph: 503 802 8114
Fax: 808-545-2019
dvanderschaaf'utnc.or
khuni'a wc.org
California
Alaska
Mary Gleason
Corinne Smith
Assoc. Director of Science
Mat -Su Basin Program Director
Monterey Office
Alaska Field Office
99 Pacific Street
715 L Street
Suite 200g
Suite 100
Monterey, CA, 93940
Anchorage, AK, 99501
Ph: 831 333 2049
Ph:- 907 276-3133
mg1casondtnc.or,
corinne smite/dtnc.orr?
Gulf of Mexico
Southeast Alaska
(TX, LA, MS, AL)
Norman Cohen
Jennifer Greene
SE Alaska Program Director
Marine Scientist, Eastern Division
Alaska Field Office, Juneau
99 Bedford Street, 5th Floor
416 Harris Street
Boston, MA 02111
Suite 301
Ph: 617 532 8353
Juneau, AK, 99801
tgrcencrrtnc.org
Ph:- 907-789-1791
ncohewd'I c.or
Puerto Rico & USVI
Aaron Hutchins
Washington
Country Representative
Paul Dye
USVI Program
Program Director
3052 Estate Little Princess
Washington Field Office
Christiansted
1917 1st Avenue
St. Croix, VI, 00820
Seattle, WA, 98101
Virgin Islands
Ph:- 206 854 8803
Ph:- 340 718 5575
pd-°e ' .,tnc.org
ahutchins'dffic.org
Please visit;
http:llNvaconservation.or Ydownloads/
13
Southeast USA
(Cape Hatteras to SC)
Mary Conley
SE Marine Conservation Director
Charleston SC Office
960 Morrison Drive
Charleston, SC, 29403
Ph: 843 937 8807
mconlev r Anc.orY
Florida
Anne Birch
FL Director of Marine Conservation
Brevard County FL Office
201 North Riverside Drive
Suite B
Indialantic, FL 32903
Ph: 321 956 7711
Northeast USA
(Cape Hatteras to ME)
Jennifer Greene
Marine Scientist, Eastern Division
99 Bedford Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Ph: 617 532 8353
1�?recne'r�;tnc.or�
Other States & Territories
Boze Hancock
TNC-NOAA Partnership Coord.
Global Marine Team
URI Narragansett Bay Campus
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI, 02882
Ph: 401 874 6121
Cell: 401 644 9472
bhanco&'d,tnc.orL)
Some marine and many freshwater priority
conservation areas (Portfolio Sites) are indicated
at: http:llmapsAnc.or/coredata
14
APPENDIX III
PROJECTED BUDGET TEMPLATE
COMMUNITY -BASED HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT
BUDGET
CATEGORIES
REQUESTED
NOAA FUNDS
APPLICANT
MATCH"
THIRD
PARTY
MATCH**
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION
(elaborate in
narrative)
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Travel
Supplies
Contractual
Other:
(Specify)*
Other: (Specify)
Other: (Specify)
Total Direct
Costs
Indirect Costs
I (see note 3 below)
I TOTAL*
Equipment purchases over $5,000 per item are not allowable under this RFP.
Please indicate whether confirmed or pending.
NARRATIVE. Provide detail (by budget category) on how the funds requested, or provided as
match, will be used to meet the goals of this project. Please include the following:
1) Specify where possible the sources of confirmed match or potential sources of match.
2) Also, at the end of the narrative include the total project budget amount if it is greater
than what is represented by the NOAA requested funds plus match, and state whether
these additional leverage funds are federal or non-federal.
3) Please identify Fringe Benefits rates used in Narrative.
4) This RFP allows for reimbursement of up to 23.13% in indirect costs. To recover
indirect costs under this RFP, the organization must have an indirect cost recovery rate
that is based upon either a) a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with the U.S.
government or b) a documented methodology for recovering indirect costs.
15
APPF,Nnix IV
DEFINITION OF RESTORATION & REPRESENTATIVE ACTIVITIES
TNC's definition of "restoration" closely mirrors that published by the National
Research Council in their book on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems:
"Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation
of its condition prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to the
resource is repaired. Both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem are
recreated. Merely recreating the form without the functions, or the functions
in an artificial configuration bearing little resemblance to a natural resource,
does not constitute restoration. The goal is to emulate a natural, functioning,
self-regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in
which it occurs. Often, natural resource restoration requires one or more of the
following processes: reconstruction of antecedent physical hydrologic and
morphologic conditions; chemical cleanup or adjustment of the environment;
and biological manipulation, including revegetation and the reintroduction of
absent or currently nonviable native species."
An illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of possible restoration activities to be
funded under this national partnership might include:
■ Restoring marsh, wetland, seagrass, or riparian communities through
revegetation, invasive plant control, natural recontouring of the landscape,
removing levees and artificial drainage systems, and related activities.
■ Restoring natural shellfish reefs and beds in estuarine areas through
introducing appropriate substrate for shellfish settlement and growth, creating
adult spawner sanctuaries and/or seeding juvenile shellfish.
■ Restoring habitat through re -introduction or enhancement of native
populations of aquatic organisms and control of invasive plant and animal
species.
■ Working with landowners or managers to restore water clarity, quality, and
natural flow of fresh and saltwater.
■ Working with water managers to restore natural volumes and timing of
freshwater flows through rivers and into estuarine and coastal areas, and to
remove or reduce the impacts of barriers to the movement of aquatic
organisms in rivers and estuaries.
16
Section 319
Grant Information
o g�. OIKTION Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Bob Martinez Center
FL�R A 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
TO: Applicants for Section 319 Grant funding for the FY13 Federal Fiscal Year
FROM: Kristine Papin Jones, Administrator, Nonpoint Source Management Section
DATE: March 19, 2012
SUBJECT: FY 2013 Application Guidance for the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Program Grant Proposal
The DEP Nonpoint Source Management Section (NPSM) is pleased to announce the
solicitation for the FY 2013 Section 319 grant and welcomes you to apply for grant funds
for your nonpoint source management projects.
The NPSM administers grant money received from the U.S. EPA through Section 319 of
the Federal Clean Water Act. These grant funds are used to implement projects to
manage nonpoint sources of pollution and restore our impaired waterbodies. Nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution refers to diffuse sources of pollution. It is caused by rainfall
moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries
away natural and human -made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers,
wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water.
Nonpoint sources include stormwater runoff from urban areas and agricultural
operations, failing septic tanks, and erosion. NPS pollution is the leading cause of
water pollution in Florida today. Managing these sources is critical to meeting Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutants for impaired waters as required by the
Clean Water Act.
In recent years, DEP has awarded Section 319 funds between $4 million and $5 million
annually to local governments and others in Florida to implement projects designed to
reduce the impacts of NPS pollution. Eligible grant recipients include state agencies,
local governments, colleges, universities, non-profit organizations, public utilities, and
state water management districts and priority is given to recipients actively engaging in
the BMAP process. The majority of funding is used to support the construction of
stormwater treatment facilities; however, funding has also been used for demonstration
projects (for agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs)), training
opportunities, and education programs.
Upon selection and EPA approval, DEP and the Grant Recipient must enter into a
contract. The contract is managed by DEP's Nonpoint Source Management Section and
the recipient's designated manager. Grant funds are administered on a cost -
reimbursement basis. The grant period has been shortened by federal requirements and
projects now must be completed within approximately three years. Grant funds
become available approximately one and a half years after project selection.
Descriptions of previously funded projects, proposal ranking information, and the new
FY13 application form can be found on the Department's website at:
htt www,dep,state,fl,us water non�ointJ319h.htni
The schedule for the FY 2013 grant cycle is as follows:
➢ May 25, 2012 - Project proposals are due to the Department for review and
ranking.
➢ Summer 2012 - Projects will be evaluated for consideration.
➢ September 30, 2012 - Selected projects will be sent to EPA for approval in a draft
Work Plan and status letters will be mailed to all applicants.
➢ Spring 2013 - EPA will provide comment and/or approval of the draft Work
Plan.
➢ Fall 2013 - Federal funding will be provided to the state and contracts will be
initiated for projects included in the Final Work Plan.
➢ Spring 2014 - Most contracts will be executed and in place. No costs may be
reimbursed for work occurring outside the contract period.
This year's selection process and grant application has been altered from previous
years. You will benefit by carefully reading this guidance, the application instructions,
and the scoring sheet attached to this solicitation. Failing to abide by these instruction
could result in your project being denied funding.
1. Eligible and non -eligible costs:
➢ Section 319 funds may not be used for planning, engineering, design, or land
acquisition.
➢ Section 319 funds may not be used for monitoring unrelated to a project,
conducting waterbody assessments, or preparing watershed plans.
2. Required match: Projects should include a minimum 40% non-federal match (that is,
Section 319 funding may not exceed 60% of the total eligible project cost). Excluded
from match are the following:
➢ Alternative federal funding. While you are encouraged to seek out and obtain
funding from all sources, including federal sources, federal funding and other
federal in -kind services cannot count as match.
➢ Land. Land acquisition cannot count towards match.
3. Tasks and Budget Categories: Applications must identify clearly the budget
categories for each task described for both grant and match dollars. The task
description should answer questions about what the funding requested will be used for.
Funding categories for 319 grants include:
➢ Salaries: You must include the table provided in the application identifying the
positions that will be paid under the grant, their hourly rate is, and how many
hours it is anticipated they will work on the project. You must clearly describe
what the named staff will work on relating to the project. For example, if paying
for a PE, you must explain what his responsibilities will be in order to justify the
hours included in the application.
➢ Fringe Benefits: Provide the fringe benefit rate and the benefits included in the
rate in the same table for salaries.
➢ Travel: You must explain who will be traveling, to where, and include those
costs in the correct task.
➢ Contractual Services: If you will be hiring a subcontractor to complete a task (for
example, completing all construction, or completing all design), state that in your
task description and include the budget in the appropriate task.
➢ Equipment: Please state what equipment (including all items over $1,000) will be
purchased and what they will be used for. They must be tied to a specific task.
For example, if purchasing a monitoring well, it must be clearly stated in the
monitoring task.
➢ Supplies/Other Expenses: Please state what supplies will be purchased or name
other expenses expected to be incurred in order to complete the task.
An example of three task descriptions and associated budget is below.
TASK NUMBER: 1
TASK NAME: Final Design and Permitting
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for
construction of the project as described in Task 3. Grantee will contract out permitting work; however,
Grantee's Environmental Engineer will spend approximately 25 hours reviewing necessary permit
documents prior to submittal.
DELIVERABLES: Submission of copy of final design; copy of all required permits.
Maximum
Hourly
Fringe
Maximum Total
MaximumTotal
Position
Hours
Rate
o
benefit (Ioj
Fringe per
per position
position
Environmental
25
$23.95
14%
$83.83
$682.58
Engineer
TOTAL
1 25
1 $23.95
1 14%
1 $83.83
1 $682,.58
TASK NUMBER: 2
TASK NAME: Advertise Project for Bid
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will bid the permitted project for construction, review and
tabulate the bids, and select the contractor. The Grantee's Environmental Engineer will spend
approximately 55 hours conducting the bid process. The Supervising Engineer will spend approximately 5
hours reviewing the bids and ensuring laws were properly followed. Additionally, supplies required
include paper, postage, and ink in order to complete the bid.
Maximum
Hourly
Fringe
Maximum Total
Maximum Total
Position
Hours
Rate
o
Benefit (lo}
Fringe per
per position
position
Environmental
55
$23.95
14%
$83.83
$682.58
Engineer
Supervising
5
$44.59
28%
$64.43
$287.38
Engineer
DELIVERABLES: Submission of copy of bid package and selection of contractor.
TASK NUMBER: 3
TASK NAME: BMP Implementation
TASK DESCRIPTION (detailed): Grantee will construct a settling pond, wetlands, and construction of a
maintenance pathway in accordance with the drawing attached to this agreement and as modified during
Task 1. A parking area shall be constructed within the Shady Tree Park, which is currently owned by the
City in addition to the rehabilitation of an existing kayak launch, pedestrian bridge to allow residents better
access to the facility to view the items installed in Task 4. Work will be conducted by a contractor.
DELIVERABLE: Provide to the Department stormwater inspection reports; photographs of completed
project; as -built certification; and signed statement from Grantee's grant manager indicating construction
has been completed in accordance with design.
PROJECT BUDGET BY CATEGORY and TASK:
Task
No.
Category
Grant Funding
Match Funding
Match Source
Contractual
$0
$55,000
City of XYZ
1
Salaries
$0
$682.58
City of XYZ
TOTAL FOR TASK
$0
$55,682.58
City of XYZ
Supplies
$0
$150.00
City of XYZ
2
Salaries
$0
$969.96
City of XYZ
TOTAL FOR TASK
$0''
$1119,96''
City of XYZ
Contractual
$600,465
$387,480
City of XYZ
3
TOTAL FOR TASK
$600,465
$387,480''
City of XYZ
3. Comprehensive Watershed Plan: Section 319 funding is divided by EPA into "base"
and "incremental' funding. Projects that are identified in or otherwise implement
"comprehensive watershed plans," as defined below, are eligible for incremental
funding. Projects not part of a comprehensive watershed plan are only eligible to
receive base funding. We anticipate that nearly $4,000,000 of incremental funds may be
available for FY13 while significantly less base funds are expected to be available.
EPA defines a comprehensive watershed plan as one that contains all nine elements
listed below. Your application must identify the name of the watershed plan (or
combination of plans) to which your project applies. The named plan must meet the
elements listed below and identify the strategy in the plan that your project
implements. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plans, National
Estuary Program Management Plans, TMDL Implementation Plans, stormwater master
plans, or other watershed plans are examples of plans that may qualify as
comprehensive watershed plans for incremental funds. It is the plan that must meet all
the nine elements, not your specific project. Do not send a copy of the plan with your
submittal.
The nine elements of a comprehensive watershed plan are:
1. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be
controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed -based plan.
2. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under item
(c) below. 1.
3. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the
load reductions estimated under item (b) above and an identification of the critical areas in which
those measures will be needed to implement this plan.
4. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or
the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this plan.
5. An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented.
6. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in this plan that is
reasonably expeditious.
7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over
time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards and, if not,
the criteria for determining whether this watershed -based plan needs to be revised or, if a NPS
TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised.
9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time,
measured against the criteria established under item (h) immediately above.
If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at (850) 245-8682
or email me at Kristine.P.Tones@dep,state.fl.us.
Sincerely,
Kristine Papin Jones
Administartor
Nonpoint Source Management Section
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Phone: (850) 245-8682
Fax: (850) 245-8434
Email: Kristine.P.Tones@dep,state,fl.us
Attachment 1: FY13 Proposal Application with form fields (For a version without form
fields use Attachment 4.
Attachment 2: Proposal Evaluation Form
Attachment 3: Supplemental Information for Section 319(h) FY 2013 Agricultural
Project Applications
Attachment 4: Alternate FY13 Proposal Application Form without form fields (Submit only
if you are unable to use Attachment 1.
South Florida Coastal Program
Grant Information
Coastal Program
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
South Florida Coastal Program
Announcement of Financial Assistance
Fiscal Year 2012
LI.�
Fl 1"11 i& WTI. 41.1 F$
SERVICE
4
In", r'
• To develop cooperative agreements that provide funding for technically sound and cost effective projects that
restore or enhance degraded coastal wetlands, uplands, estuaries, and riparian corridors; including the removal of
exotic vegetation from coastal areas; and promoting public awareness of south Florida's ecological issues; and
• To form partnerships in south Florida in joint effort to conserve, restore, and enhance coastal resources and
habitat.
• To implement the Service's Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) framework focused on population objectives
and take the next steps in our conservation work across a suite of challenging issues including the most
compelling one of our time -- accelerating climate change.
PROJECT GOALS
• Ultimately result in on -the ground restoration or enhancement of coastal habitats, focusing on landscape level
initiatives
• Improve habitat for fish and wildlife resources, including federally protected species
• Collaborate with partners to combine resources and increase effectiveness
• Leverage additional funding or other in -kind goods and/or services towards the total project cost
• Incorporate SHC into
projects with consideration of potential climate change effects and resiliency of restoration activities to factors
including, but not limited to, sea level rise.
Selected projects are funded from annual appropriations to the Coastal Program. Although project ideas may be
developed and project descriptions may be submitted throughout the year, please bear in mind that our final funding
allocations are typically distributed in mid -spring. Therefore, in order to be considered for funding in FY 2012, please
ensure that project descriptions are submitted no later than April 9, 2012. Projects will be evaluated by staff in the South
Florida Ecological Services Office and those selected will enter into cooperative agreements. During the cooperative
agreement process, project contacts may be asked to provide additional details of the work to be accomplished.
If you are aware of a project idea or need but are unsure of how to best develop it into a full project description, please
feel free to contact the Trust Resources Supervisor for guidance (see contact information below).
PROJECT INFORMATION
Proiect Title
Contact Information: Include name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone, fax, and e-mail address for each principal
investigator and co -investigator. Clearly indicate who the applicant is and what form of entity it is (e.g., Federal, state, or
local government; academic institution; non -governmental organization; non-profit group; or citizen).
Biological Planning
Project Objectives: Outline the plan of action and detail how the proposed work will be accomplished. Projects may be
multi -year in scope or a phased approach (up to 3 years). If a project will occur over more than 1 year, indicate
specifically what accomplishments (including acres restored or enhanced) will be completed each year.
Project Benefits to Coastal Ecosystems: (1) Note target/umbrella species and, if available, specific population objectives
for these species. Be sure to describe how any state or federally protected species will benefit from the project; (2)
provide background information on any problems the project seeks to resolve and the project's relevance to south
Florida's coastal ecosystem; and (3) outline the anticipated long-term and permanent results.
Conservation Design
Habitat Priority and Landscape Level Issues: Including how conservation practices to be implemented will address key
habitat limiting factors and threats to the target or umbrella species.
Project Location and Description: Provide a figure of the project area (include latitude and longitude; section, township,
and range; county), and clearly describe the approach and specific methods required to accomplish the project. Include
the following: (1) geographic extent of the benefits, including those that go beyond the project boundaries (e.g.,
landscape level benefits); (2) type of habitat and amount of area to be restored or permanently protected (e.g., linear feet
of shore line, acres); and (3) background on any problems the project seeks to resolve and the project's relevance to south
Florida's coastal ecosystems. Clearly quantify the amount of restoration (e.g., acreage per habitat type such as wetlands,
riparian, uplands, etc.) and indicate whether ownership of the project area is public or private.
Conservation Delivery
Contributing Partners: Identify each partner and what type of entity it is, define its role and responsibilities in completing
the project, and clearly itemize what each will contribute (e.g., funds, staff hours, volunteer hours, technical support) and
the dollar value. Please list all partners associated with the project, even those not contributing financial assistance.
Project Costs: Indicate the total cost to complete the project and provide a detailed budget itemizing individual
component costs, including all indirect and overhead costs. Indicate how much funding is being requested from the
Coastal Program and what project components this funding will pay for. In addition, indicate the amount of cash and in -
kind contributions each partner will contribute.
Statement of Products: Identify each product that will result from the project, in addition to quantifying the amount of
restoration (in acres per habitat type, stream miles, linear feet of shoreline, etc.). For multi -year projects, please specify
how many acres will be restored or enhanced during each year of the agreement.
Time Frame: Provide a detailed schedule of project implementation, duration, monitoring, reporting (semiannual and
annual), and milestones. Identify anticipated completion date for each product.
Actions to Date (ifany): Describe past or current activities that are relevant to the project, such as previously initiated or
completed projects that could affect project initiation or offset the total project cost.
Permits: Projects that require Federal, state, local, or private authorization (e.g., permits, permission to access or conduct
activities on public or private lands) must demonstrate that they have or will have the necessary authorizations necessary
to complete the project. Additional environmental compliance documentation may be requested from those projects
selected for funding.
Outcome -based Monitoring
Describe monitoring plan; if available provide reference. Briefly summarize outcome -based accomplishment measure to
be monitored relative to target species and population objectives.
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
Applicants are asked to submit one hard copy of each project description and one electronic copy (.DOC file) to
the addresses below. The electronic files may be sent via email, but please pay attention to the file size and send
multiple emails if necessary. Please limit project descriptions, excluding attachments, to five pages in length with
fonts no smaller than 12 point;
Other attachments should be limited to literature cited, aerial images, maps, project design schematics, and other
figures;
For more information or if you have any questions, please contact:
Craig Aubrey
Trust Resources Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office
1339 20t" Street
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960
Phone: (772) 562-3909 (ext. 309)
Email: craig_aubrey@fws.gov
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
Grant Information
49264 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002/Rules and Regulations
annually. It is not estimated to result in
the expenditure by motor vehicle and
motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers, child restraint system
manufacturers, and tire manufacturers
of more than $109 million annually.
Authority: Sec. 3, Pub. L. 106-414, 114
Stat. 1800 (49 U.S.C. 30102-103, 30112,
30117-121, 30166-167); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: July 24, 2002.
Jeffrey W. Runge,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-19200 Filed 7-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 84
RIN 1018—AF61
National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the
requirements for participation in the
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program authorized by the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act (Act) and provides
guidance for the Program's
administration by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (referred to as
"Service," "we," and "us" within this
rule). It replaces interim procedures and
clarifies guidance for preparation,
submission, and evaluation of proposed
projects and administration of funded
projects.
DATES: This rule is effective July 30,
2002.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this
rule is available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Division of Fish and
Wildlife Management and Habitat
Restoration, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Room
840, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally Valdes-Cogliano, Division of Fish
and Wildlife Management and Habitat
Restoration, by telephone (703) 358-
2201; fax (703) 358-2232; e-
mail<sally valdescoglianoaOfws.gov> or
Gary Reinitz, Division of Federal Aid,
by telephone (703) 358-2159; fax (703)
358-1837; e-mail.gary reinitz@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
What Is the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program?
The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act (16
U.S.C. 3951-3956) authorizes the
Director of the Service to make
matching grants to coastal States for
acquisition, restoration, enhancement,
management, and preservation of
coastal wetlands. Grants are available
annually on a competitive basis to
coastal States. Funding for this Program
comes from the Sport Fish Restoration
Account, which is supported by excise
taxes on fishing equipment, and
motorboat and small engine fuels.
The primary goal of the National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant
Program is the long-term conservation of
coastal wetland ecosystems. It
accomplishes this goal by helping States
in their efforts to protect, restore, and
enhance their coastal habitats. The
Program's accomplishments are
primarily on -the -ground and measured
in acres.
Why Protect Coastal Wetlands?
Coastal wetlands provide essential
fish and wildlife habitat. Coastal
ecosystems comprise less than 10
percent of the Nation's land area, but
support a much higher proportion of our
living resources. Specifically, coastal
areas support a high percentage of our
threatened and endangered species,
fishery resources, migratory songbirds,
and migrating and wintering waterfowl.
In addition to wildlife benefits,
wetlands provide substantial flood and
storm control values and can reduce the
need to construct expensive flood
control structures. They make an
important contribution to water quality
by recharging groundwater, filtering
surface runoff, and treating waste, and
they provide natural areas important for
recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Uplands associated with wetlands
provide food and cover to wildlife and
buffer wetlands from soil erosion and
contaminants. In the coterminous
United States, more than half of the
estimated original 221 million acres of
American wetlands have been destroyed
since European settlement. The
concentration of the U.S. population in
coastal areas is a continuing source of
development pressure on the remaining
coastal wetlands.
What Has the Program Accomplished?
Since the Service began awarding
grants in 1992, we have awarded about
$105 million to 25 States and 1 U.S.
territory to protect and/or restore about
130,000 acres of coastal wetland
ecosystems. The Program's emphasis on
encouraging partnerships, supporting
watershed planning, and leveraging
ongoing projects has helped stretch
program funds. The resource benefits of
this Program have included habitat
protection and restoration for migratory
birds, shorebirds, waterfowl,
endangered and threatened species, and
fish and shellfish.
Why Do We Need This Rule?
The National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is currently
being administered using internal
interim program guidance and the
standard grant administration policies
of our Federal Aid Program. We believe
administration of the Program could be
improved through regulations
specifically tailored to meet the needs of
the Program. Accordingly, the rule uses
a plain English style, provides examples
to illustrate concepts, and combines
current guidance in one place. It should
result in a streamlined proposal
preparation, review and grant
administration process.
Currently, we evaluate grant requests
received from the State agencies on an
annual schedule. In the last few years,
the number of proposals received
annually by the Service National Office
has ranged from 29 to 36. A review
panel consisting of Service personnel
representing the coastal Regions of the
Service and specific program areas (for
example, the Fisheries and Habitat
Conservation, Endangered Species, and
Refuges Programs) reviews and ranks all
proposals. Based on the rankings of the
panel, recommendations are sent to the
Director of the Service, who makes the
final determination of which projects
will receive grants. The basic schedule
and procedures will not change
significantly with this rule.
The criteria for selecting proposals in
this final rule have been modified from
the interim guidance. For example, a
new criterion has been added to give
credit to projects that provide benefits to
migratory birds. Also, we have
expanded the discussion of each
criterion to clarify project scoring. The
changes were based on comments
provided by Service personnel who
have reviewed National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant proposals.
These criteria can be found in the rule
portion of this document.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule that was
published August 20, 2001 (66 FR
43555), we requested that interested
parties submit any comments they
might have. We particularly sought
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49265
comments from the affected State
agencies. The comment period was from
August 20, 2001, to October 4, 2001.
We received comments from nine
State government agencies. These
comment letters provided suggestions
and comments on a wide range of
topics. We have considered all the
comment letters received during the
comment period and have made minor
changes to improve and clarify the rule
in response. Summaries of the major
comments or issues follow.
Issue 1: Do we need to extend the
period for the development of the grant
agreement?
Response: We agree that a longer
period for development of the grant
agreement is appropriate. Resolving all
the compliance issues that need to be
addressed before a grant agreement is
signed can be difficult. We are revising
§ 84.42 so that funds allocated for a
grant will be held until December 31 of
the following year.
Issue 2: What is the relationship
between the goals of the National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant
program and the Long-term and Annual
Performance Goals of the Service?
Response: Long-term conservation of
coastal wetlands is the primary goal of
the Program. The results can be
quantified in terms of acres enhanced,
protected, and/or restored. (See § 84.10
for the goal statement.) When States
conserve their wetlands resources using
this program we all achieve benefits to
habitat and wildlife. The discussion of
performance measures in the rule in
§ 84.30(a)(2)(v) has been clarified to
explain where to find the Service's
Long-term and Annual Performance
Goals and the relationship of these goals
to the Grants Program.
Issue 3: Should the annual grant
schedule be changed?
Response: The schedule in the rule
reflects the current operating schedule
for the Grants Program. We examined
the effects of moving deadlines but have
decided to maintain the current
schedule.
Issue 4: Is the definition of ineligible
activities too restrictive? Do we need to
distinguish between planning activities
for stand-alone grants, and planning as
a minimal part of a grant objective?
Response: The focus of this Grant
Program has always been on -the -ground
accomplishments —through land
acquisitions, easements, restoration and
enhancement activities —and its
accomplishments are measured in acres.
We have modified the description of
ineligible activities in § 84.20(b) to
clarify that planning activities of a
minimal nature and necessary to
complete the project could be allowable.
Issue 5: The definition of a
"substantial proposal" should include
that it is consistent with State and
Regional watershed plans. Consistency
should be encouraged and rewarded in
the grant scoring process.
Response: We agree that project
proposals should take into account
watershed plans. One of the ranking
criteria in § 84.32 is specifically
designed to give credit to proposals that
demonstrate the value of the proposal in
connection with wider planning efforts.
Issue 6: For the purposes of this rule,
how should we define maritime forests?
Response: The current definition is
not intended to include all kinds of
maritime forests that might be included
from a strictly biological perspective. It
is, instead, focused on protection of the
maritime forests characteristic of the
southeastern United States. This area
was considered to be, when the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act was passed, extremely
beneficial in protecting the coast and
also under severe development
pressure.
Issue 7: Should regionally threatened
wetland types be given the same priority
as nationally decreasing wetland types?
Response: The Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act states that the Director of the
Service should give priority to coastal
wetlands conservation projects that are
consistent with the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan developed
under Section 301 of the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act (16 U.S.C.
3921). This Conservation Plan, which
was published in 1991, categorized
wetland types into declining, stable, and
increasing. Types that were declining
nationally do need to receive priority
under the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program scoring
system.
We recognize that certain important
wetland types can be declining
regionally even if they are not declining
nationally. For this reason, we included
in this rule the possibility of regionally
decreasing types receiving credit in the
scoring system if the case for regionally
declining types is well -documented (see
§ 84.32(a)(1)(i))•
Issue 8: How should we define long-
term conservation? Should we handle
restoration and acquisition differently?
Response: Long-term conservation is a
requirement established by the Act for
this program. This rule requires that
projects provide conservation for at least
20 years. In selecting this number we
looked at the requirements of other
programs. For this one criterion,
acquisition projects may have some
advantage over restoration projects, but
this is one criterion among many and
we do not want to establish separate
ranking criteria for acquisition and
restoration.
Effective Date
This rule is effective upon
publication. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), we believe that we have good
cause for making this rule effective
upon publication to ensure that the rule
is in effect during the next funding cycle
for the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program. This rule
will benefit those entities seeking grants
under this Program. This rule provides
helpful information to grant applicants
in preparing their applications and will
help ensure that the Service applies fair
and consistent standards in reviewing
the grant applications.
What Are the Environmental Effects of
This Regulation?
This final rule is a regulation of an
administrative and financial nature.
Therefore, the action is categorically
excluded under 516 DM 2, Appendix
1.10 from any environmental
documentation pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
However, subsequent actions involved
with acquisition, restoration, or
enhancement will require further
compliance with NEPA on a case -by -
case basis.
Compliance with NEPA and other
environmental laws and Executive
Orders such as the Endangered Species
Act, Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act,
Executive Orders on Floodplains (E.O.
11988) and Wetlands (E.O. 11990), other
applicable executive orders on historic/
cultural resources, prime and unique
farmlands, and the Clean Water Act will
be satisfied before we approve grant
agreements for any project.
Does This Rule Have Any Information
Collection Requirements?
This rule's information collection
requirements include those necessary to
fulfill applicable requirements of 43
CFR part 12, and these have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et. seq.). This section of the Code of
Federal Regulations provides the
uniform administrative requirements for
grants and cooperative agreements to
States and local governments. The
required forms include a grant
agreement form, USFWS Form 3-1552
(OMB control number 1018-0049); an
amendment to the grant agreement form,
USFWS Form 3-1591 (OMB control
49266 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
number 1018-0049); the Federal Aid
Grant Application Booklet, which was
approved by OMB on January 18, 2001,
(OMB control number 1018-0109); the
NEPA Compliance Checklist, USFWS
Form 3-2185 (OMB control number
1018-0110); and the Summary
Information for Ranking National
Coastal Wetlands Grant Program
Proposals, USFWS Form 3-2179 (OMB
Control Number 1018-0111). An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in
Executive Order 12866, this rule is a
significant regulatory action. OMB
makes the final determination of
significance under Executive Order
12866.
This rule will not have an annual
effect of $100 million or adversely affect
an economic sector, productivity, jobs,
the environment, or other units of
government. A cost -benefit and
economic analysis is not required. The
entities affected by this final rule are
State natural resource agencies. The
primary intended effect is to augment
State efforts to conserve their coastal
wetland resources. The program is
completely voluntary; States choose
whether to submit proposals for
matching grants. New funds available
each year are determined as a
percentage of monies received by the
Sport Fish Restoration Fund. However,
the total receipts for a given year for this
program are limited by the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act to $15 million. Receipts
for the last few years have been in the
$10 million to $13 million range. This
last grant cycle included $13 million in
new money and $1.5 million available
as carryover from previous years.
This rule will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. The Service is charged with
administering the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Program by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act. This Program
supports and augments State efforts to
conserve their resources. States
voluntarily choose to participate, and no
other Federal agencies have
responsibilities associated with this
Grant Program. Some Federal agencies
have participated voluntarily on specific
projects as cooperators with the State
agencies.
This rule will not affect entitlements,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights
and obligations of their recipients. It
will affect this specific grant program.
The Service has been giving out
matching grants to States under the
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program since 1992. If we
continue to operate with interim
procedures and general Federal Aid
grant administration, the same amount
of grant assistance will be given to
coastal States. The main effect that we
expect from this rulemaking is a
streamlined proposal preparation and
review and grant administration
process.
This rule will not raise novel legal or
policy issues. As stated above, the
Service has been awarding grants to
States and administering this Program
under the authority of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act since 1992. However,
the purpose of this new rule is to
improve the process.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities as
defined under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). By law, the
only eligible recipients of this grant
program are coastal State and territory
government agencies. Operating with
interim guidance, we have given out
grants since 1992. This rule should not
result in a major change to the Program.
The Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act specifies
an annual cap of $15 million that can be
allocated to this program. An initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. Accordingly, a Small Entity
Compliance Guide is also not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This final rule will not have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; will not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions; and will not have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign -based enterprises.
As stated above, the maximum
amount, by law, that can be directed to
this Grant Program is $15 million per
year. This Program is directed
exclusively at State governments. This
rule might provide some contracting
work at a local level for restoration
projects, creating a minor positive effect
on the local economy. All land
purchased under this Program is paid at
fair market value from willing sellers.
The land involved is a relatively small
amount spread over the 10 to 15 States
and territories that typically receive
grants in a given year. All lands
acquired will be put under long-term
conservation protection by the States.
Some of the grants are for restoration
work on lands already owned by the
States.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), this final rule will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments and will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
"significant regulatory action" under
the Act. A Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. As stated above,
this rule pertains to a grant program
directed at State governments. In a few
cases, local governments have chosen to
partner in a grant project proposed by
the State. Participation in the Program is
entirely voluntary. The Program income
is limited to $15 million per year by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act.
Takings
In accordance with Executive Order
12630, this final rule does not have
significant takings implications. A
takings implication assessment is not
required. The rule specifies that all
acquisitions under this Program are
from willing sellers. No private property
will be taken from unwilling owners for
the furtherance of this Program, and just
compensation will be provided to
willing owners.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the final rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. The rule
allows eligible coastal States to make
decisions regarding the selection of
properties for acquisition, plan
restoration projects, and take protective
measures.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order. To the extent
of our knowledge, no legal cases have
ever been associated with this grant
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49267
program. The rule should actually serve
to reduce the possibility of litigation by
establishing specific requirements for
participation in the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
and guidance for its administration by
the Service. The rule will establish a
clear legal standard for affected conduct.
Government -to -Government
Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
"Government -to -Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments" (59 FR 22951), E.O.
13175, and part 512, chapter 2 of the
Department of the Interior Manual, we
have evaluated potential effects on
federally recognized Indian tribes and
have determined that the effects are
minimal. The Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act specifies the States that can
participate in this Grant Program. The
Act does not provide for grants directly
to Indian tribes. Tribes have, in a few
cases, participated as cooperators on
projects.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
(Executive Order 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issues
Executive Order 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. While this
rule is a significant action under
Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, and use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
How Does the Intergovernmental Review
of Federal Programs Work?
This National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is covered
under Executive Order (Order) 12372
"Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" and 43 CFR Part 9
"Intergovernmental Review of
Department of the Interior Programs and
Activities." Under the Order, States may
design their own processes for
reviewing and commenting on proposed
Federal assistance under covered
programs.
Coastal States and territories that have
chosen to participate in the Executive
Order process have established Single
Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants
from jurisdictions that do not
participate do not need to take any
action regarding E.O. 12372. All other
applicants should alert their SPOCs
early in the application process. This
step will insure that applicants find out
about any SPOC requirements. If you as
an applicant are required to submit
materials to the SPOC, indicate the date
of this submittal (or the date of contact
if no submittal is required) on the
Standard Form 424.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 84
Coastal zone -wetlands, Environmental
protection -natural resources, Fisheries,
Grant administration, Grant programs -
natural resources, Intergovernmental
relations, Marine resources, Natural
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the
supplementary information, we are
amending subchapter F of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
by adding a new part 84, to read as
follows:
PART 84—NATIONAL COASTAL
WETLANDS CONSERVATION GRANT
PROGRAM
Subpart A —General Background
Sec.
84.10 What is the purpose and scope of this
rule?
84.11 How does the Service define the
terms used in this rule?
84.12 What are the information collection,
record keeping, and reporting
requirements?
Subpart B—Applying for Grants
84.20 What are the grant eligibility
requirements?
84.21 How do I apply for a National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant?
84.22 What needs to be included in grant
proposals?
Subpart C—Project Selection
84.30 How are projects selected for grants?
84.31 An overview of the ranking criteria.
84.32 What are the ranking criteria?
Subpart D—Conditions on Acceptance/Use
of Federal Money
84.40 What conditions must I follow to
accept Federal money?
84.41 Who prepares a grant agreement?
What needs to be included?
84.42 What if a grant agreement is not
signed?
84.43 How do States get the grant monies?
84.44 What is the timetable for use of grant
funds?
84.45 How do I amend a proposal?
84.46 What are the cost -sharing
requirements?
84.47 What are allowable costs?
84.48 What are the procedures for
acquiring, maintaining, and disposing of
real property?
84.49 What if the project costs more or less
than originally expected?
84.50 How does a State certify compliance
with Federal laws, regulations, and
policies?
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3951-3956.
Subpart A —General Background
§ 84.10 What is the purpose and scope of
this rule?
The regulations in this part establish
the requirements for coastal State
participation in the National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
authorized by Section 305 of the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act (Pub L. 101-646, title
III; 16 U.S.C. 3954). The primary goal of
the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program is the long-
term conservation of coastal wetlands
ecosystems. It accomplishes this by
helping States protect, restore, and
enhance their coastal habitats through a
competitive grants program. Results are
measured in acres protected, restored,
and enhanced.
§ 84.11 How does the Service define the
terms used in this rule?
Terms used have the following
meaning in this part:
Coastal barrier. A depositional
geologic feature that is subject to wave,
tidal, and wind energies; protects
landward aquatic habitats from direct
wave attack; and includes all associated
aquatic habitats such as adjacent
wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and
nearshore waters. These can include
islands; spits of land connected to a
mainland at one end; sand bars that
connect two headlands and enclose
aquatic habitat; broad, sandy, dune
beaches; or fringing mangroves. Coastal
barriers are found on coastlines
including major embayments and the
Great Lakes of the United States and its
territories.
Coastal Barrier Resources System. A
defined set of undeveloped coastal
areas, designated by the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-348)
and the Coastal Barrier Improvement
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-591). Within
these defined units of the System,
Federal expenditures are restricted to
discourage development of coastal
barriers.
Coastal States. States bordering the
Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin); States
bordering the Atlantic, Gulf (except
Louisiana), and Pacific coasts (Alabama,
Alaska, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Virginia, and Washington); and
American Samoa, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto
49268 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (Louisiana
is not included because it has its own
wetlands conservation program
authorized by the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration
Act and implemented by the Corps of
Engineers with assistance from the State
of Louisiana, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Departments
of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce.)
Coastal wetland ecosystems.
Ecosystems that consist of multiple,
interrelated coastal land features. They
include wetlands in drainage basins of
estuaries or coastal waters that contain
saline, brackish, and nearshore waters;
coastlines and adjacent lands; adjacent
freshwater and intermediate wetlands
that interact as an ecological unit; and
river mouths and those portions of
major river systems affected by tidal
influence —all of which interact as an
integrated ecological unit. Shorelands,
dunes, nearshore islands, barrier islands
and associated headlands, and
freshwater wetlands within estuarine
drainages are included in the definition
since these interrelated features are
critical to coastal fish, wildlife, and
their habitats.
The definition of a coastal wetland
ecosystem also applies to the Great
Lakes and their watersheds, where
freshwater plays a similar hydrologic
role. The Great Lakes coastal wetland
ecosystem is made up of multiple
interrelated coastal landscape features
along the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes
coastal wetland ecosystem includes
wetlands located adjacent to any of the
Great Lakes including Lake St. Clair and
connecting waters, and mouths of river
or stream systems draining directly into
the Great Lakes. Shorelands, dunes,
offshore islands, and barrier islands and
associated headlands are included in
the definition since these interrelated
features are critical to Great Lakes fish,
wildlife, and their habitats.
Coastal Wetlands Act or Act. The
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection
and Restoration Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
3951-3956).
Eligible applicant. Any agency or
agencies of a coastal State designated by
the Governor. It is usually a State
natural resource or fish and wildlife
agency.
Enhancement. The manipulation of
the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a wetland
(undisturbed or degraded) site to
heighten, intensify, or improve specific
function(s) or to change the growth stage
or composition of the vegetation
present.
Fund. A fund established and used by
a coastal State for acquiring coastal
wetlands, other natural areas, or open
spaces. The fund can be a trust fund
from which the principal is not spent,
or a fund derived from a dedicated
recurring source of monies including,
but not limited to, real estate transfer
fees or taxes, cigarette taxes, tax
checkoffs, or motor vehicle license plate
fees.
Grant. An award of financial
assistance by the Federal Government to
an eligible applicant.
Long-term conservation. Protecting
and restoring terrestrial and aquatic
environments for at least 20 years. This
includes the hydrology, water quality,
and fish and wildlife that depend on
these environments.
Maintenance. (These activities are
ineligible under the program; the
definition is included to distinguish
these activities from acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, and
management.) Maintenance includes
those activities necessary for upkeep of
a facility or habitat. These activities
include routine, recurring custodial
maintenance such as housekeeping and
minor repairs as well as the supplies,
materials, and tools necessary to carry
out the work. Also included is
nonroutine cyclical maintenance to
keep facilities or habitat improvements
fully functional. Cyclical maintenance is
major maintenance or renovation
activities conducted at intervals
normally greater than 1 year.
Management. (Includes habitat
management only.) Habitat management
includes vegetation manipulation and
restoration of habitat to support fish and
wildlife populations. Creation of
wetlands where they did not previously
exist is not included in the definition of
management.
Maritime forest. Maritime forests are
defined, for the purposes of this
regulation, as broad-leaved forests that
occur on barrier islands and along the
mainland coast from Delaware to Texas.
Examples are primarily characterized by
a closed canopy of various combinations
of live oak (Quercus virginiana), upland
laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica),
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and
cabbage palm (Saba] palmetto). Shrubs
and smaller trees typical of the
understory include live oak, upland
laurel oak, pignut hickory, red mulberry
(Morus rubra), wild olive (Osmanthus
americanus), American holly (Ilex
opaca), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),
beautyberry (Callicarpa americana),
bumelia (Sideraxylon spp.), and small -
flowered pawpaw (Asimina parviflora).
The herb layer is generally rich and
diverse, typically including
partridgeberry (Mitchella repens),
coralbean (Erythrina herbacea), small -
leaved milk pea (Galactia microphylla),
tick trefoils (Desmodium spp.), and
spikegrass (Chasmanthium
sessiliflorum). Vines are represented by
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
Virginia creeper (Parrhenocissus
quinquefolia), and various briers
(Smilax spp.).
This natural community type becomes
established on old coastal dunes that
have been stabilized long enough to
sustain forests. In time, the
accumulation of humus contributes to
moisture retention of soils, while the
canopy minimizes temperature
fluctuations by reducing soil warming
during the day and heat loss at night.
Because of the underlying deep sands,
maritime forests are generally well -
drained.
Maritime forests have become prime
resort and residential property because
of their relatively protected locations
along the coast. Although this
community type originally occurred in
virtually continuous strips along the
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, residential
developments and infrastructure
encroachments have severely
fragmented most occurrences.
National Wetlands Inventory. A
Service program that produces
information on the characteristics,
extent, and status of the Nation's
wetlands and deepwater habitat. The
program's strongest mandates come
from the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901),
which directs the Service to map
wetlands, conduct wetlands status and
trends studies, and disseminate the
information produced.
National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan. A plan developed by
the Service for the U.S. Department of
the Interior at the direction of Congress
through the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901).
The plan provides the criteria and
guidance for identifying wetlands that
warrant attention for Federal and State
acquisition using Land and Water
Conservation Fund appropriations.
Operations. (These activities are
ineligible under the program; the
definition is included to distinguish
these activities from acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, and
management.) Operations include
activities necessary for the functioning
of a facility or habitat to produce
desired results. These include public
use management and facility
management.
Program. The National Coastal
Wetlands Conservation Grant Program.
A program administered by the Service
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49269
that awards Federal grants through a
competitive process to State agencies for
projects to acquire, restore, manage, or
enhance coastal wetlands.
Project. One or more related activities
necessary to fulfill a stated objective to
provide for the long-term conservation
of coastal wetlands including the lands
and waters, hydrology, water quality,
and wetland -dependent wildlife. These
activities can include acquisition,
restoration, enhancement, or
management of coastal wetlands.
Restoration. The manipulation of the
physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of
returning natural/historic functions to a
former or degraded wetland.
§ 84.12 What are the information
collection, record keeping, and reporting
requirements?
(a) Information collection
requirements include:
(1) An Application for Federal
Assistance (Standard Form 424);
(2) A proposal, following the guidance
of OMB Circular A-102 and the Federal
Aid Grant Application Booklet (OMB
Control Number 1018-0109), that
includes statements of need and
objective(s); a description of expected
results or benefits; the approach to be
used, such as procedures, schedules,
key personnel and cooperators, location
of the proposed action, and estimated
costs to accomplish the objective(s);
identification of any other actions that
may relate to the grant; and a
description of public involvement and
interagency coordination;
(3) Discussion of ranking criteria,
including a completed summary
information form (USFWS Form 3-
2179);
(4) Assurances of compliance with all
applicable Federal laws, regulations,
and policies (SF 424B or SF 424D); and
(5) Documents, as appropriate,
supporting the proposal; for example,
environmental assessments (including
the NEPA compliance checklist, USFWS
Form 3-2185) and evaluations of effects
on threatened and endangered species.
(6) A grant agreement form if the
proposal is selected for an award
(USFWS Form 3-1552); and
(7) A grant amendment form if the
agreement is modified (USFWS Form 3-
1591).
(b) Record -keeping requirements
include the tracking of costs and
accomplishments related to the grant as
required by 43 CFR 12.60, monitoring
and reporting program performance (43
CFR 12.80), and financial reporting (43
CFR 12.81). The project report should
include information about the acres
conserved, with a breakdown by
conservation method (for example,
acquired, restored, or both) and type of
habitat (list habitat types and include
the acreage of each). Are the results of
the project being monitored? Is there
evidence that the resources targeted in
the proposal (for example, anadromous
fish, threatened and endangered species,
and migratory birds) have benefited?
(c) Reporting requirements include
retention and access requirements as
specified in 43 CFR 12.82 and
authorized by OMB through the Federal
Aid Grant Application Booklet (OMB
Control Number 1018-0109).
Subpart B—Applying for Grants
§ 84.20 What are the grant eligibility
requirements?
(a) Eligible grant activities include:
(1) Acquisition of a real property
interest in coastal lands or waters from
willing sellers or partners (coastal
wetlands ecosystems), providing that
the terms and conditions will ensure the
real property will be administered for
long-term conservation.
(2) The restoration, enhancement, or
management of coastal wetlands
ecosystems, providing restoration,
enhancement, or management will be
administered for long-term
conservation.
(b) Ineligible activities include but are
not limited to:
(1) Projects that primarily benefit
navigation, irrigation, flood control, or
mariculture•
(2) Acquisition, restoration,
enhancement, or management of lands
to mitigate recent or pending habitat
losses resulting from the actions of
agencies, organizations, companies, or
individuals;
(3) Creation of wetlands by humans
where wetlands did not previously
exist;
(4) Enforcement of fish and wildlife
laws and regulations, except when
necessary for the accomplishment of
approved project purposes;
(5) Research;
(6) Planning as a primary project
focus (planning is allowable as a
minimal component of project plan
development);
(7) Operations and maintenance;
(8) Acquiring and/or restoring upper
portions of watersheds where benefits to
the coastal wetlands ecosystem are not
significant and direct; and
(9) Projects providing less than 20
years of conservation benefits.
§ 84.21 How Do I Apply fora National
Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant?
(a) Eligible applicants should submit
their proposals to the appropriate
Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Proposals must be
complete upon submission, and must
include the information outlined in
§ 84.22 to be complete.
(1) Service Regional Federal Aid
Offices' responsibilities for
administration of this grant program
include: Notifying the States of the
program, its requirements, and any
changes that occur; determining the
State agencies designated by the
Governor as eligible applicants;
ensuring that only eligible applicants
apply for grants; coordinating with
various Service programs to ensure that
sound and consistent guidance is
communicated to the States;
determining proposal eligibility and
substantiality; and determining 75
percent match eligibility and notifying
the States of approved and disapproved
proposals.
(2) Service Divisions of Ecological
Services in the regions and field and
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation in
the national office provide technical
assistance and work with Federal Aid to
encourage State participation in this
process.
(3) Send your proposals to the
appropriate Regional Offices, as follows:
Coastal states by service regions IRegional contact information
American Samoa, California, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (Region 1).
Texas(Region 2)............................................................................
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Region 3)
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Or-
egon 97232-4181, (503) 231-6128.
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue, SW, Albuquerque, New Mex-
ico 87103, (505) 248-7450.
Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, (612) 713-5130.
49270 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
Coastal states by service regions Regional contact information
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands. Louisiana is not eligible to ice, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345,
participate under Section 305 of 16 U.S.C. 3954, because Louisiana (404) 679-4159.
has its own separate program. (Region 4).
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hamp- Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
shire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vir- ice, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035—
ginia (Region 5). 9589, (413) 253-8508.
Alaska (Region 7)..................................................................................... Regional Director (Attention: Federal Aid), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-
ice, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (907) 786-
3435.
(b) The Program operates on an
annual cycle. Regional Federal Aid
Offices request proposals from the
States in early April. Proposals must be
received by the Regional Director on or
before a due date set in early June in
order to be considered for funding in the
following fiscal year. Check with your
Regional Office each year for the exact
due dates. Regions review proposals for
eligibility and substantiality. Regions
may rank eligible and substantial
proposals and submit them to the
national office of the Service in
Washington, DC, by a date set in late
June. A Review Panel coordinated by
the Service's National Office of
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
reviews and ranks proposals in early
August using the criteria established in
this rule. The Director selects the
proposals and announces the grant
recipients at the beginning of the new
fiscal year (October 1).
(c) More than one agency in a State
may submit proposals to the Service if
the Governor determines that more than
one agency has responsibility for coastal
wetlands.
(d) A project proposal that includes
several separate and distinct phases may
be submitted in phases, but any
succeeding phases must compete
against other proposals in the year
submitted. Obtaining money for one
phase of a project will not be contingent
upon acquiring money for another phase
of that same project.
(e) The Federal (Program) share will
not exceed $1 million per project.
(f) The percentage of non -Federal
match (cash or in -kind) must not be less
than 25 percent of the total costs if the
State has a designated fund or not less
than 50 percent without a fund.
§ 84.22 What needs to be included in grant
proposals?
Proposals must include the following:
(a) Application for Federal Assistance
(Standard Form 424);
(b) A Statement of Assurances of
compliance with applicable Federal
laws, regulations, and policies (either
Standard Form 424B or 424D); and
(c) A project statement that identifies
and describes:
(1) The need within the purposes of
the Act;
(2) Discrete, quantifiable, and
verifiable objective(s) to be
accomplished during a specified time
period;
(3) Expected results or benefits, in
terms of coastal lands and waters, the
hydrology, water quality, or fish and
wildlife dependent on the wetlands;
(4) The approach to be used in
meeting the objectives, including
specific procedures, schedules, key
personnel, and cooperators;
(5) A project location, including two
maps: A map of the State showing the
general location of the proposal, and a
map of the project site;
(6) Estimated costs to attain the
objective(s) (the various activities or
components of each project should be
broken down by cost and by
cooperator);
(7) If the request is more than
$100,000 (Federal share), the applicant
must submit a Form DI-2010, certifying
that the grant money will not be used
for lobbying activities;
(8) A concise statement, with
documentation, of how the proposal
addresses each of the 13 numeric
criteria including a summary using FWS
Form No. 3-2179 (see § 84.32);
(9) A description of the State trust
fund that supports a request for a 75
percent Federal share in sufficient detail
for the Service to make an eligibility
determination, or a statement that
eligibility has been previously approved
and no change has occurred in the fund;
(10) A list of other current coastal
acquisition, restoration, enhancement,
and management actions; agency(ies)
involved; relationship to the proposed
grant; and how the proposal fits into
comprehensive natural resource plans
for the area, if any; and
(11) Public involvement or
interagency coordination on coastal
wetlands conservation projects that has
occurred or is planned that relates to
this proposal (Specify the organizations
or agencies involved and dates of
involvement.).
Subpart C—Project Selection
§ 84.30 How are projects selected for
grants?
Project selection is a three -step
process: proposal acceptance, proposal
ranking, and proposal selection.
(a) Proposal acceptance. (1) The
Regional Federal Aid Offices decide
whether a proposal should be accepted
for consideration by determining if the
proposal is complete, substantial, and
contains activities that are eligible.
Proposals that do not qualify are
immediately returned to the State.
Revision and resubmission of returned
proposals is allowable during this
period, which is in June (check with
your Regional Office for the exact dates
each year). If any of the factors of
completeness, substantiality, or
eligibility are not met, the Regions
should not forward the proposal to the
Washington Office.
(2) To be considered for acceptance,
the proposal must be substantial in
character and design. A substantial
proposal is one that:
(i) Identifies and describes a need
within the purposes of the Act;
(ii) Identifies the objective to be
accomplished based on the stated need;
(iii) Uses accepted principles, sound
design, and appropriate procedures;
(iv) Provides public conservation
benefits that are cost effective and long-
term, i.e., at least 20 years; and
(v) Identifies obtainable, quantified
performance measures (acres enhanced,
restored, or protected) that help achieve
the management goals and objectives of
the National Coastal Wetlands
Conservation Grant Program. Through
this program, the States' efforts and
leadership will help the Service meet its
Long -Term and Annual Performance
Goals as expressed in the Service's
Annual Performance Plan.,
(3) The grant limit is $1 million.
Proposals requesting Program awards
i The Service's Annual Performance Plan can be
found on the Service's homepage at http://u u'u,//
.f t,s.gov/r9gpro. For more information you might
also contact the Budget Office at 202-208-4596 or
the Planning and Evaluation Staff at 202-208-2549.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49271
that exceed $1 million will be returned
to the appropriate State. Similarly,
individual projects that have clearly
been divided into multiple proposals for
submission in one grant cycle to avoid
this limit will be returned to the
appropriate State. The State can revise
and resubmit the proposal so that the
request does not exceed the $1 million
limit.
(b) Proposal ranking. Once a proposal
is accepted by the Region, the Regional
Federal Aid Office sends the proposal to
the National Federal Aid Office, which
works with the National Office of the
Fish and Wildlife Management and
Habitat Restoration Program for
distribution to a Review Panel. The
Review Panel includes representation
from our coastal Regions and from other
Service Programs, for example, the
Endangered Species Program. The
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
Program is responsible for coordinating
the review and ranking of proposals
according to the established criteria, a
process that usually involves a national
meeting.
(c) Proposal selection. The Review
Panel's recommendations are forwarded
to the Director of the Service for a final
review and project selection. The
Director announces the selection by
October 1.
§ 84.31 An overview of the ranking criteria.
(a) The primary objective of the
proposal will be to acquire, restore,
enhance, or manage coastal wetlands to
benefit coastal wetlands and the
hydrology, water quality, and fish and
wildlife dependent upon them. The
Program will not provide grants, for
example, for construction or repair of
boat ramps or docks for recreational
purposes and construction or support of
research facilities or activities. The
purpose of the ranking criteria is to
provide a means for selecting the best
projects —those that produce the
maximum benefits to coastal wetlands
and the fish and wildlife that depend on
them.
(b) Proposal ranking factors. (1)
Ranking criteria. As explained in
§ 84.32, we will evaluate proposals
according to 13 ranking criteria. These
criteria have varying point values.
Proposals must address each of these 13
criteria.
(2) Additional considerations. Even
though the criteria provide the primary
evaluation of proposals, we may factor
additional considerations into the
ranking decision at the national level. In
case of a tie, we will use these
additional considerations to rank
proposals having identical scores.
(c) The criteria in § 84.32 are not
listed in priority order.
(d) Points are assigned on the basis of
a completed project, rather than current
conditions, e.g., count 50 acres of
estuarine emergent wetlands if 50 acres
of that habitat type will be restored
when the project is completed.
(e) A range of points rather than a set
point value allows the reviewer to
distinguish between, for example, a
proposal that provides some foraging
habitat for a threatened species versus
one that provides critical nesting habitat
of several endangered species. Scoring
guidance is included with the
individual criteria.
(f) A total of 64 points is possible
under the scoring system.
(g) If a grant proposal is not selected,
the State may resubmit it for
reconsideration in subsequent fiscal
years. Resubmission of a grant proposal
is the responsibility of the applicant.
§ 84.32 What are the ranking criteria?
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
will rank proposals using the 13 criteria
listed below. In the following list, a
description of each criterion is followed
by examples and the points they would
receive for that criterion.
(1) Wetlands conservation. Will the
project reverse coastal wetland loss or
habitat degradation in decreasing or
stable coastal wetland types? Will it
conserve wetlands to prevent losses of
decreasing or stable wetland types?
(Maximum: 7 points)
(i) The majority of the project area
(over 50 percent) is nationally
decreasing coastal wetland types,z or
the majority is regionally decreasing
wetlands types in which the case for
regionally decreasing is well -
documented (Up to 7 points). The
nationally decreasing types are
estuarine intertidal emergent; estuarine
intertidal forested; estuarine intertidal
scrub -shrub; marine intertidal;
palustrine emergent; palustrine forested;
and palustrine scrub -shrub. Describe the
wetlands using terms listed above.
Include a breakdown showing the
percentage of the proposal's total and
wetland acreage in decreasing types.
Provide National Wetlands Inventory
codes/information if available.
Information about these can be found on
the National Wetland Inventory's web
site at http://wetlands.fws.gov.
(ii) The majority of the project area
(over 50 percent) is nationally stable
coastal wetlands types z (Up to 5
2 These designations are based on the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. For more
information about the plan, or to receive a copy of
the document, refer to the contact information
provided in § 84.21.
points). The nationally stable types are
estuarine intertidal non -vegetated and
estuarine subtidal. Describe the
wetlands using the terms listed above.
Include a breakdown showing the
percentage of the proposal's total and
wetland acreage in stable types. Provide
National Wetlands Inventory codes/
information if available.
(iii) Wetlands benefited are less than
50 percent of the project area. (Up to 3
points)
(iv) If the project would benefit
wetlands in the upper portion of the
coastal watershed, but does not
demonstrate significant and direct
benefits to coastal wetlands, the
proposal will not receive any points. (0
points)
(v) We will award a full 7 points to
proposals that document that over 50
percent of their project area would be,
upon project completion, decreasing
coastal wetland types. A combination of
decreasing and stable types that is over
50 percent of the project area could
receive an intermediate score of 4, 5, or
6 points, depending on the balance
between decreasing and stable types. If
wetlands are 50 percent or less of the
project area, use the following guide for
allocating points: 25 to 50 percent of the
project area is decreasing or stable
wetlands, 2, 3, or 4 points; 5 to 24
percent, 1 or 2 points; and less than 5
percent, 0 points.
(2) Maritime forests on coastal
barriers. Will the proposal significantly
benefit maritime forests on coastal
barriers? The coastal barrier does not
need to be a unit of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System. (Maximum: 7 points)
(i) The proposal documents
significant benefit to maritime forests on
a coastal barrier. Describe the forest in
sufficient detail so reviewers can
determine whether it meets the
definition of "maritime forest." (Up to 7
points)
(ii) The proposal does not benefit
maritime forests on a coastal barrier. (0
points)
(iii) For this criterion most scores
should be either 0 or 7. If questions arise
about the significance of the benefit or
whether the forests meet the strict
definition, an intermediate score could
be given.
(3) Long-term conservation. Does the
project ensure long-term conservation of
coastal wetland functions? The project
must provide at least 20 years of
conservation benefits to be eligible.
(Maximum: 7 points)
(i) Once the project is complete, the
project will provide continuing coastal
wetlands benefits in perpetuity (100
years or longer). (7 points)
49272 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Once the project is complete, the
project will provide continuing coastal
wetland benefits for 50-99 years. (3 to
6 points)
(iii) Once the project is complete, the
proposal will provide continuing coastal
wetlands benefits for 20-49 years. (1 to
3 points)
(iv) The proposal should show how
the project will be maintained and the
benefits sustained over time. Proposals
must include adequate documentation
of long-term conservation of coastal
wetland values, such as a 25-year
easement, to receive points for this
criterion. If part of the project's benefits
will be perpetual (owned in fee title, for
example) and part is estimated to last 20
years, reviewers should weigh the
different elements of the project and
give an intermediate score.
(4) Coastal watershed management.
Would the completed project help
accomplish the natural resource goals
and objectives of one or more formal,
ongoing coastal ecosystem or coastal
watershed management plan(s) or
effort(s)? Describe the management plan
or effort(s). (Maximum: 3 points)
(i) The project supports the natural
resource goals of identified formal,
ongoing coastal ecosystem or coastal
watershed management plans or efforts.
Describe the management plan(s) and/or
effort(s) and explain how this project
relates to its objectives. A plan that very
specifically identifies the site will
receive more points than a plan
containing many generic references. (Up
to 3 points)
(ii) The project does not support the
natural resource goals and objectives of
a formal, ongoing coastal ecosystem or
coastal watershed management effort. If
the proposal benefits the upper portions
of coastal watersheds, but provides no
significant and direct benefits to the
coastal wetlands ecosystems, the
proposal will not receive points. (0
points)
(5) Conservation of threatened and
endangered species. Will the project
benefit any federally listed endangered
or threatened species, species proposed
for Federal listing, recently delisted
species, or designated or proposed
critical habitat in coastal wetlands? Will
it benefit State -listed threatened and
endangered species? (Maximum: 5
points)
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (e.g., nesting,
breeding, feeding, nursery areas) for
federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species that use the
coastal area project site for at least part
of their life cycle. The project will
benefit recently delisted species and
habitat conservation plans developed
under the auspices of the Endangered
Species Act. List the species and their
status (e.g., threatened or endangered)
and provide documentation (e.g., cite
recovery plan, attach letter from species
expert) of current or recent species
occurrence in the coastal area project
site. Describe the importance of the
habitat. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project will provide, restore,
or enhance important habitat for State -
listed threatened and endangered
species. (Up to 2 points)
(iii) The project will not provide,
restore, or enhance important habitat for
federally or State -listed or proposed
endangered or threatened species in the
coastal area project site for any part of
their life cycle. If the proposal provides
benefits to threatened and endangered
species in the upper portion of the
coastal watershed, but provides no
significant and direct benefits to
threatened and endangered species
using coastal wetlands ecosystem
habitat, the proposal will not receive
any points. (0 points)
(iv) The combined scores of
subparagraphs (a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(ii) of
this section cannot exceed the 5-point
maximum.
(6) Benefits to fish. Will the project
provide, restore, or enhance important
fisheries habitat? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (i.e.,
spawning, nursery, juvenile, or foraging
habitat) for specific species that use the
coastal area project site for at least part
of their life cycle. These species may
include anadromous, interjurisdictional,
or other important species. List species,
habitat types, and benefits to each
species. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project does not document
current or future benefits to fish species
and their habitat. (0 points)
(iii) The more specific the information
is on the use of the area and the
importance of the habitat, the greater the
points. An area specifically identified as
critical for conservation in a fisheries
management plan will, for example,
receive more points than one which is
not.
(7) Benefits to coastal -dependent or
migratory birds. Will the project
provide, restore, or enhance important
habitat for coastal -dependent or
migratory birds?
(i) The project will provide, restore, or
enhance important habitat (i.e.,
breeding, staging, foraging, wintering/
summering habitat) benefits for at least
part of the life cycle of coastal
dependent or migratory birds. List the
species and habitat types, and describe
the benefits to each. (Up to 5 points)
(ii) The project will not significantly
benefit coastal -dependent or migratory
birds. (0 points)
(iii) We will give maximum points to
projects that benefit coastal -dependent
species identified in the North
American Waterfowl Plan or listed as
species of management concern.3
Proposals should also include
information that demonstrates how the
project will contribute to the regional
goals developed under the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan,
Partners in Flight, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, or other
bird conservation initiatives. Proposals
that fail to do so will not receive
maximum points. Indicate if the
proposed area has been specifically
identified by any program or agency for
its migratory bird values.
(8) Prevent or reduce contamination.
Will the project prevent or reduce input
of contaminants to the coastal wetlands
and associated coastal waters, or restore
coastal wetlands and other associated
coastal waters that are already
contaminated? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The project will prevent significant
inputs of contaminants or will provide
significant improvements to the quality
of the coastal wetland and associated
waters through protection from
contaminants or restoration, including
assimilation of nutrients and
nonpersistent toxic substances. Describe
the types and sources of possible or
current impairment to the coastal
wetland and other associated coastal
waters (e.g., to water quality, sediments,
flora, or fauna). Describe how
contaminant inputs or residues will be
prevented, reduced, or eliminated.
Preventing contaminants by precluding
residential development through
acquisition will not normally warrant
full points unless the applicant can be
shown that significant contamination
would have occurred otherwise. (Up to
5 points)
(ii) The proposal will not significantly
prevent impairment or improve the
quality of the coastal wetland and
associated coastal waters. If the proposal
provides positive water quality benefits
in the upper portions of watersheds, but
provides no significant and direct
positive water quality benefits to coastal
wetland ecosystems, the proposal will
not receive points. (0 points)
(iii) Show direct links between
contamination and wildlife and aquatic
habitats. To receive full points, you
3 For more information about species of
management concern, visit the website
migratorybirds.fws.gov or contact the Division of
Migratory Bird Management at 703-358-1714.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49273
should provide documentation of the
linkage. Reviewers may consider the
extent of contaminants prevention/
reduction when assigning points.
Proposals having the potential to
produce an attractive nuisance (e.g.,
acquiring and/or restoring a wetland
that will be attractive to wildlife and
that also has the potential to accumulate
high levels of persistent toxic metals or
hydrocarbon compounds) will not
receive points.
(9) Catalyst for future conservation. Is
the project proposal designed to
leverage other ongoing coastal wetlands
protection projects in the area, such as
acquisition of areas to add to already
acquired coastal lands, or provide
impetus for additional restoration?
(Maximum: 4 points)
(i) The project will be essential (e.g.,
key to completion or implementation of
a greater conservation plan) to further
advance or promote other coastal
projects under way. Explain why. (Up to
4 points)
(ii) The project proposal does not
demonstrate a positive impact on other
coastal projects. (0 points)
(iii) To receive the maximum number
of points, the proposal should be
essential to the initiation or completion
of a larger project. Examples may
include acquisition of key in -holdings
within a larger protected area, funds
necessary to acquire fee simple interest
in properties where a conservation
easement has already been secured, and
funds necessary to complete restoration
activities to a protected area.
(10) Partners in conservation. Will the
proposal receive financial support,
including in -kind match, from private,
local, or other Federal interests?
(Maximum: 4 points)
(i) The proposal includes the State
applicant plus one or more non -State
financial partners. (Up to 4 points)
(ii) The proposal includes only
financial support from the State
applicant. (0 points)
(iii) A written description of
commitment of funds or in -kind match
from the partners must accompany the
proposal. (This requirement is in
addition to signing the Assurances
Form.) The purpose of this criterion is
to promote partnerships with private,
local, or other Federal agencies rather
than to increase the dollar amount of the
matching share. Therefore, no specific
minimum amount is indicated here. At
least two partners, in addition to the
State applicant, should have committed
money to the project to receive
maximum points.
(11) Federal share reduced. Does the
proposal significantly reduce the
Federal share by providing more than
the required match amount? In the case
of a Territory or Commonwealth that
does not require match funds, does the
proposal include financial support from
sources other than the Territory or
Commonwealth? (Maximum: 5 points)
(i) The State, territory, or
commonwealth applicant must have a
non -Federal funding source (in -kind
match does not count for this criterion)
that reduces the Federal share. (Up to 5
points)
(ii) The maximum Federal share is
requested by the proposal. (0 points)
(iii) The purpose of this criterion is to
increase the amount of money from non -
Federal sources. This increase decreases
the need for Federal match dollars, so
that Federal dollars can help more
projects. Documentation of each
partner's financial commitment must
accompany the proposal to receive
points. If the State itself provides the
excess match, the State should receive
credit for reducing the Federal share.
Each 5 percent above the required State
match would be approximately equal to
1 point. The following two examples,
using both a 50 and 75 percent Federal
match share, define a 10 percent
increase in a State's match amount.
(A) Example 1-50—Percent Federal
Match
If the total project costs are $100,000,
then the required State match share is
$50,000.
If the State or a partner provides an
additional cash contribution equal to
10 percent of the $50,000, $5,000.
This is defined as a 10 percent
increase in the State match.4
(B) Example 2-75—Percent Federal
Match
If the total project costs are $100,000,
then the required State match share is
$25,000.
If the State or a partner provides an
additional cash contribution equal to
10 percent of the $25,000, $2,500.
This is defined as a 10 percent
increase in the State match.4
(12) Education/outreach program or
wildlife -oriented recreation. Is the
project designed to increase
environmental awareness and develop
support for coastal wetlands
conservation? Does it provide
recreational opportunities that are
consistent with the conservation goals
of the site? (Maximum: 3 points)
(i) The proposal includes a site -
specific, substantive education/outreach
4 From sources other than Federal agencies.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment funds may in
some cases be defined as "non -Federal." See
discussion under § 84.46 on What are the cost -
sharing requirements?
or wildlife -oriented recreation program.
(Up to 3 points)
(ii) The proposal does not include a
substantive education/outreach or
wildlife -oriented recreation program. (0
points)
(iii) The proposal must describe what
makes this program substantive and link
it closely with the specific site to
receive full points. Programs supported
by activities or funds from partners
should be encouraged over use of
project dollars. Project proposals may
include substantive education/outreach
components necessary for the
completion of the project. However,
these should be activities that
complement or support the primary goal
of the project.
(13) Other factors. Do any other
factors, not covered in the previous
criteria, make this project or site
particularly unique and valuable? Does
the project offer important benefits that
are not reflected in the other criteria?
The following list includes examples of
projects that provide benefits not
reflected in other criteria. (Maximum: 4
points)
(i) The project might provide
significant benefits to, for example: rare
or threatened habitat types; biodiverse
habitats; rare and declining species; and
the local community.
(ii) The project would be particularly
cost-effective, providing very significant
resource benefits for the cost.
(iii) The project would assist in the
prevention or control of invasive
species.
(iv) The project would provide
important cultural or historical resource
benefits.
(v) The project would provide other
benefits.
(vi) Reviewers should not assign
points to resource values covered by
other criteria. The proposal should
provide a short narrative to support
claims to Other Factors points.
(b) Additional considerations. We will
factor the following considerations into
the ranking process if two or more
proposals have the same point totals.
The tie -breaking factors are as follows:
(1) The project would prevent the
destruction or degradation of habitat
from pending sale of property, from
adverse effects of current activities such
as draining of wetlands, or from natural
processes such as erosion at excessive
rates;
(2) The project would protect unique
and significant biological diversity;
(3) The project has lower costs per
acre conserved; and
(4) In the project proposal the State or
third party provides lands as opposed to
using lands already owned by the State
49274 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
or third party as part of the State
matching share.
(c) All proposals must include the
information described in paragraphs (b)
(1)—(4) of this section. If a tie occurs
between two or more proposals, the
reviewers need to have this information
available immediately to decide which
proposal or proposals should be
recommended for selection.
Subpart D—Conditions on Acceptance/
Use of Federal Money
§ 84.40 What conditions must I follow to
accept Federal grant money?
(a) The audit requirements for State
and local governments (43 CFR part 12),
and
(b) The uniform administrative
requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements with State and local
governments (43 CFR part 12).
§ 84.41 Who prepares a grant agreement?
What needs to be included?
The coastal State and the Fish and
Wildlife Service work together to
develop a Grant Agreement (Form 3-
1552) upon completion of the review by
the Regional Director to determine
compliance with applicable Federal
laws and regulations. The Grant
Agreement includes the grant title, the
grant cost distribution, the agreement
period, other grant provisions, and
special grant conditions. If a Coastal
Barrier Unit is affected, the Service must
conduct internal consultations pursuant
to Section 6 of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, as amended by the
Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, prior
to providing any grant monies to that
State.
§ 84.42 What if a grant agreement is not
signed?
Monies that have been allocated for a
grant will be held until December 31 of
the following year. If a grant agreement
has not been signed by the State and the
Service and, therefore, the money has
not been obligated for the approved
grant by that date, the funds
automatically are returned to the
Program account in Washington.
§ 84.43 How do States get the grant
monies?
Funding to States is provided on a
reimbursable basis. See § 84.47 for
information on what costs can be
reimbursed. The Service may reimburse
the State for projects completed, or
make payments as the project
progresses. For construction work and
labor, the Service and the State may
jointly determine, on a case -by -case
basis, that payments may be made in
advance. We will minimize the time
elapsing between the transfer to the
State and the State's need for the funds,
and the time period will be subject to a
specific determined need for the funds
in advance. Except for extenuating
circumstances, a reasonable time period
to advance funds to a State is up to 3
days. OMB Circular A-102, Parts II and
III, 43 CFR part 12, and 31 CFR part 205
provide specific information on
methods and procedures for transferring
funds.
§ 84.44 What is the timetable for the use of
grant money?
Once money is granted to the coastal
States, the money is available to those
States for the time designated in the
grant agreement. If a State needs more
time, the State must apply for an
extension of time by amending the grant
agreement. If the Service does not
extend the time, the unobligated monies
return to the Service for expenditure on
future grants. Also, if a State cannot
spend the money on the approved
project, the State must notify the
appropriate Regional Director as soon as
possible so that the money can revert
back to the Service for future grants.
§ 84.46 How do I amend a proposal?
Following procedures in 43 CFR
12.70, you must submit a signed original
and two copies of the revised SF 424,
the revised portion of the project
statement if appropriate, and an
explanation of the reason for the
revision to the Regional Director
(Federal Aid).
§ 84.46 What are the cost -sharing
requirements?
(a) Except for certain insular areas, the
Federal share of an approved grant will
not exceed 50 percent of approved costs
incurred. However, the Federal share
may be increased to 75 percent for
coastal States that have established and
are using a fund as defined in § 84.11.
The Regions must certify the eligibility
of the fund in order for the State to
qualify for the 75 percent matching
share.
(b) The following insular areas:
American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
have been exempted from the matching
share, as provided in Pub. L. 95-134,
amended by Pub. L. 95-348, Pub. L. 96-
205, Pub. L. 98-213, and Pub. L. 98-454
(48 U.S.C. 1469a). Puerto Rico is not
exempt from the match requirements of
this Program.
(c) The State may provide materials
(e.g., heavy equipment) or other services
as a noncash match for portions of the
State's matching share. The State may
also provide the value of land, including
the land proposed for restoration,
enhancement, or management as a
noncash match, provided that the land
is necessary and reasonable for
completing the project. For example, if
a State proposes to manage a contiguous
wetland of 100 acres, and already owns
10 of the 100 acres, the State can apply
the current value of the 10 acres,
provided that the 10 acres are necessary
to manage the entire 100 acres. If the 10-
acre wetland were not contiguous and
no connection could be made that the
10 acres were needed to manage the
proposed wetland, the State could not
use the 10 acres as a noncash match.
Review 43 CFR 12.64 for determining
the value of in -kind contributions.
(d) The requirements in 43 CFR 12.64
and Service Manual Part 522 FW 1.13 5
apply to in -kind matches or cost -sharing
involving third parties. Third party in -
kind contributions must represent the
current market value of noncash
contributions furnished as part of the
grant by another public agency, private
organization, or individual. In -kind
matches must be necessary and
reasonable to accomplish grant
objectives.
(e) Coastal States must commit to
their matching share of the total costs by
signing the Application for Federal
Assistance (SF 424), the Assurances (SF
424B or SF 424D), and the Grant
Agreement (Form 3-1552).
(f) No Federal monies, non -Federal
monies, in -kind contributions, or
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
grant program monies that will be or
have been previously used to satisfy the
matching requirement of another
Federal grant can be used as part of the
coastal State's matching share.
(g) The coastal State is responsible for
ensuring the full amount of that State's
matching requirement, either with State
funds or from contributions toward the
proposal from other agencies, groups, or
individuals. Sources other than State
applicant funds must be documented
and approved as eligible.
(h) Total Federal contributions
(including all Federal sources outside of
the Program) may not exceed the
maximum eligible Federal share under
the Program. This includes monies
provided to the State by other Federal
programs. If the amount of Federal
money available to the project is more
than the maximum allowed, we will
reduce the Program contribution by the
amount in excess.
5 From the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual,
available on-line at http://uiu,w.jvts.gov/directives/
index.html.
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 49275
(i) Natural Resource Damage
Assessment funds that are managed by
a non -Federal trustee are considered to
be non -Federal, even if these monies
were once deposited in the Department
of the Interior's Natural Resource
Damage Assessment and Restoration
Fund, provided the following criteria
are met:
(1) The monies were deposited
pursuant to a joint and indivisible
recovery by the Department of the
Interior and non -Federal trustees under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or the Oil Pollution Act
(OPA);
(2) The non -Federal trustee has joint
and binding control over the funds;
(3) The co -trustees agree that monies
from the fund should be available to the
non -Federal trustee and can be used as
a non -Federal match to support a project
consistent with the settlement
agreement, CERCLA, and OPA; and
(4) The monies have been transferred
to the non -Federal trustee.
§ 84.47 What are allowable costs?
(a) Allowable grant costs are limited
to costs necessary and reasonable to
achieve approved grant objectives and
meet the applicable Federal cost
principles in 43 CFR 12.62 (b).
(b) If a project or facility is designed
to include purposes other than those
eligible under the Act, the costs must be
prorated among the various purposes.
(c) If you incur costs before the
effective date of the grant, they cannot
be reimbursed, with the exception that
we can allow preliminary costs, but
only with the approval of the
appropriate Regional Director.
Preliminary costs may include costs
necessary for preparing the grant
proposal, such as feasibility surveys,
engineering design, biological
reconnaissance, appraisals, or
preparation of grant documents such as
environmental assessments for
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
§ 84.48 What are the procedures for
acquiring, maintaining, and disposing of
real property?
(a) Acquisition, maintenance, and
disposal of real property must follow
the rules established in 43 CFR 12.71
and 50 CFR 80.14.
(1) Title to real property acquired
under a grant or subgrant must be vested
in the State or subgrantee, including
local governments and nonprofit
organizations. States must submit
documentation (e.g., appraisals and
appraisal reviews) to the Regional
Director who must approve it before the
State becomes legally obligated for the
purchase. States will provide title
vesting evidence and summary of land
costs upon completion of the
acquisition. The grant agreement and
any deed to third parties (e.g.,
conservation easement or other lien on
a third -party property) must include
appropriate language to ensure that the
lands and/or interests would revert back
to the State or Federal Government if
the conditions of the grant were no
longer being implemented.
(2) In cases where the interest
obtained is less than fee simple title, the
interest must be sufficient for long-term
conservation of the specified wetlands
resources.
(3) Real property acquired with
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant funds must continue to serve the
purpose for which it was acquired. If
acquired property is used for reasons
inconsistent with the purpose(s) for
which acquired, such activities must
cease and any adverse effects on the
property must be corrected by the State
or subgrantee with non -Federal monies
in accordance with 50 CFR 80.14.
(4) The State or subgrantee may not
dispose of or encumber its title or other
interest in real property without prior
approval of the appropriate Regional
Director of the Service. Real property
includes, but is not limited to, lands,
buildings, minerals, energy resources,
timber, grazing, and animal products. If
real property is sold, the State or
subgrantee must compensate the Service
in accordance with 43 CFR 12.71(c)(2).
(5) If rights or interests obtained with
the acquisition of coastal wetlands
generate revenue during the Grant
Agreement period, the State will treat
the revenue as program income and use
it to manage the acquired properties. If
the State sells or leases real property,
the State must treat the proceeds as
program income and return the money
to the Federal Aid program regardless of
the grant period.
(6) Inconsistent use that is not
corrected can be grounds for denying a
State future grants under this Program.
(b) A coastal State is responsible for
design, supervision, and inspection of
all major construction projects in
accordance with accepted engineering
standards.
(1) The coastal State must have
adequate rights to lands or waters where
restoration or enhancement projects are
planned to ensure protection and use of
the facilities or structures throughout
their useful life.
(2) The construction, enlargement, or
rehabilitation of dams are subject to
Federal standards for dam design. If
requested, the State must provide to the
Regional Office written certification that
any proposed changes to a dam meet
Federal standards.
(3) The coastal State must operate and
maintain facilities, structures, or related
assets to ensure their use for the stated
project purpose and that they are
adequately protected.
(c) Acquisition, property records,
maintenance, and disposal of equipment
must be made in accordance with 43
CFR 12.72.
§ 84.49 What if the project costs more or
less than originally expected?
All requests for additional monies for
approved coastal wetland grants will be
subject to the entire review process
along with new grants. Any monies left
over after the project is complete, or if
the project is not completed, should be
returned to the Washington Office for
use in following years. If a State has
lands it wishes to acquire, restore, or
enhance in close proximity to the
original project, and the Region deems
that spending project monies in these
areas would provide similar benefits,
the Region may use unspent balances to
pay for these projects with prior
approval from the Washington Office.
States must provide adequate
justification and documentation to the
Regions that the lands acquired,
restored, or enhanced are similar to
those in the original proposal and
provide similar benefits to fish and
wildlife.
§ 84.60 How does a State certify
compliance with Federal laws, regulations,
and policies?
(a) In accepting Federal money,
coastal State representatives must agree
to and certify compliance with all
applicable Federal laws, regulations,
and policies. The applicant will need to
submit a Statement of Assurances
(either SF 424B or SF 424D) signed and
dated by an authorized agency
representative as part of the proposal.
(b) Compliance with environmental
and other laws, as defined in the Service
Manual 523 FW Chapter 1,15 may require
additional documentation. Consult with
Regional Offices for how this applies to
a specific project.
Dated: March 29, 2002.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary forFish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-19065 Filed 7-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
6 The Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, see
footnote 3 for availability.
TMDL
Grant Information
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
TMDL WATER QUALITY RESTORATION GRANT PROPOSAL APPLICATION
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT FUNDING: TMDL Grant $ %
Matching Funds $ %
Total Project Cost $ %
LEAD ORGANIZATION:
End of Fiscal Year:
FEID Number:
CONTACT PERSON:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
FAX:
EMAIL:
COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS AND CONTACT PERSON (THOSE PROVIDING FUNDING OR IN -
KIND SERVICES):
PROJECT ABSTRACT:
PROJECT LOCATION AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS:
Water Body Name:
Hydrologic Unit Code(HUC):
Project Latitude:
Project Longitude:
Land Uses within the Watershed (acres and percentages of total):
TMDL STATUS OF WATER BODY AND PROJECT:
Name of Impaired Water:
1
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Status of Impaired Water:
Status of BMAP:
POLLUTION REDUCTION STRATEGY:
PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S):
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (PLEASE LIST ALL TASKS AND DELIVERABLES):
NOTE: Typical tasks will include: Land acquisition, design, permitting, bidding, BMP construction,
BMP monitoring, grant administration, quarterly progress reports, draft final report, final report.
TASK 1:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 2:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 3:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
TASK 4:
DELIVERABLES:
SCHEDULE:
ETC
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION:
BMP's
Other
Other
Installed
TSS
kg/yr
TP
kg/yr
TN
kg/yr
BIRD
kg/yr
k / r
k /yr
y
Pre -Project
v
R
Post -Project
R
Load
Reduction
0
a-
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
c _J
Pre -Project
2
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Post -Project
Load
Reduction
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
y
Pre -Project
v
R
�
Post -Project
R
Load
Reduction
0
a-
% Reduction
Other
Other
TSS
TP
TN
BOD
k / r
k / r
>.kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
y
Pre -Project
v
R
�
Post -Project
R
Load
Reduction
0
a-
% Reduction
MODEL USED: Allowable models include Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (STEPL,
2007), Nonpoint Source Loading Management Model (NPSLMM, 2008) and Watershed
Management Model (WMM, 2006). The STEPL model is available for download at
Ltp,//it.tetratech-ffx.com/steel/ while the other models are on the TMDL Grant web site.
EMCS USED IN MODEL: Please use the Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) listed in
Attachment 1 in the model to estimate pre- and post -project pollutant loads and load reductions.
PROJECT MILESTONES:
Task
Activity
Start
Complete
1
Land Acquisition
2
Design and Permitting
3
Bidding
4
BMP Construction
5
BMP Effectiveness Monitoring
6
Public Education
7
Draft and Final Reports:
3
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
PROJECT BUDGET:
Project FundingActivity
Grant' Amount
Matching
Contribution
Match Source
Land Acquisition
Design and Permitting
Bidding
BMP Construction
BMP Effectiveness
Monitoring
Public Education
Draft and Final Reports:
Total:
Total Project Cost:
Percentage Match:
*If a stormwater utility or other dedicated recurring fee is contributing, put that information
in the following table.
DEDICATED STORMWATER FUNDING INFORMATION:
OTHER FUNDING (Not Match):
REFERENCES CITED:
NOTE: PLEASE SUBMIT ALL APPENDICES IN A SEPARATE WORD DOCUMENT. THIS
MAY INCLUDE MAPS, FIGURES OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO
INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION
12
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT 1 - EMC VALUES FOR MODELING POLLUTANT LOADS
LAND USE
TYPICAL
RUNOFF CONCENTRATION (mg/1)
TOTAL N
TOTAL P
BOD
TS5
COPPER'
LEAD
ZINC
CATEGORY
Low -Density Residential'
1.61
0.191
4.7
23.0
0.0084
0.0024
0.0314
Single -Family
2.07
0.327
7.9
37.5
0.016
0.004
0.062
Multi -Family
2.32
0.520
11.3
77.8
0.009
0.006
0.086
Low -Intensity Commercial
1.18
0.179
7.7
57.5
0.018
0.005
0.094
High -Intensity Commercial
2.40
0.345
11.3
69.7
0.015
--
0.160
Light Industrial
1.20
0.260
7.6
60.0
0.003
0.002
0.057
Highway
1.64
0.220
5.2
37.3
0.032
0.011
0.126
Agricultural
Pasture
3.47
0.616
5.1
94.3
--
--
--
Citrus
2.24
0.183
2.55
15.5
0.003
0.001
0.012
Row Crops
2.65
0.593
--
19.8
0.022
0.004
0.030
General A riculturez
2.79
0.431
3.8
43.2
0.013
0.003
0.021
Undeveloped / Rangeland /
1.15
0.055
1.4
8.4
--
--
--
Forest
Mining / Extractive
1.18
0.15
7.63
60.03
0.0033
0.0023
0.0573
1. Average of single-family and undeveloped loading rates
2. Mean of pasture, citrus, and row crop land uses
3. Runoff concentrations assumed equal to industrial values for these parameters
4. Value assumed to be equal to 50% of single-family concentration
5
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
APPENDIX 2. MONITORING TO DETERMINE TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
If this project is approved for funding, the applicant will be required to monitor
the effectiveness of the stormwater BMP. BMP effectiveness data is required to
demonstrate the environmental benefits of a project. The general monitoring
requirements are set forth below. Please note that the final scope of work in the
contract may include more specifics on particular monitoring requirements.
Within six months before the completion of the project, the applicant will submit a
detailed monitoring plan to the department for review and comment. The monitoring
plan will specify the sampling locations, sampling instruments, and parameters to be
sampled. The monitoring will include sampling of from seven to ten (10) storm events
as described below. If possible, monitored events will be discrete rainfall events
generally consisting of greater than 0.20 inches and less than 1.5 inches or rain.
However, we want to monitor the real world to determine true efficiency. Therefore,
remember this is a GENERAL guideline with respect to the storm event. Actual rainfall
may vary depending on the type of BMP, the contributing drainage area, the amount of
impervious area, and the time of concentration.
Monitoring will be conducted at two locations: inflows and outflows.
Monitoring will include the following parameters:
Daily rainfall (to nearest 0.01 inch) measured at the sampling location with
verification from the local weather station. Rainfall data should be provided for at
least the week proceeding monitoring and day(s) of monitoring.
• Flow using approved flow activated flow meters
• Parameters as specified below
Parameter
Detection Limit
Method
Total Cadmium
1 ug/I
Composite*
Total Chromium
5 ug/I
Composite*
Total Copper
5 ug/I
Composite*
Total Zinc
10 ug/I
Composite*
NO2+NO3
0.1 mg/I
Composite*
TKN
0.3 mg/I
Composite*
Total Ammonia
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
Or Total N
Composite*
Total Phosphorus
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
Ortho Phosphate
0.05 mg/I
Composite*
TSS
1 mg/I
Composite*
Oil/Grease
1 mg/I
Composite*
Fecal coliform
N/A
Grab** if possible
0
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
*Flow weighted composite samples will be taken over the storm hydrograph. Typically,
the samples will be composited over the inflow hydrograph at the inflow and for up to a
36 hour period at outflow station, depending upon the time of concentration and flow
into and out of the BMP. Each composite will include at least six evenly distributed sub -
samples.
**Grab samples to be collected within the drainage area time of concentration at
influent and effluent stations described above.
The applicant should estimate the pollutant removal efficiency of the stormwater BMP
by calculating the percent reduction in the event mean concentration (EMC) for the
period of record [1-(Average Inflow EMC/Average Outflow EMC)]. For BMPs with
multiple inflow (and/or outflow) points, the pollutant contributions for each inflow should
be flow weighted. See the National Stormwater Best Management Practice database at
hg2:// w.bm2database.orq/ and Development of Performance Measures, Determining
Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice Removal Efficiencies, 1999 by URS
Greiner Woodward Clyde, ASCE and EPA at h:// w.bmdatabase.or/task3 1.df
From ASCE Data base
3.1 Efficiency Ratio
Definition
The efficiency ratio is defined in terms of the average event mean concentration (EMC) of
pollutants over some time period:
Average outlet EMC average inlet EMC — average outlet EMC
ER= 1 ------------------------------ =-------------------------------------------------------
Average inlet EMC average inlet EMC
EMCs can be either collected as flow weighted composite samples in the field or calculated
from discrete measurements. The EMC for an individual event or set of field measurements,
where discrete samples have been collected, is defined as:
EMC = ViCi l Vi
where,
V: volume of flow during period i
C: average concentration associated with period i
n: total number of measurements taken during event
The arithmetic average EMC is defined as,
aveNageEMC = EMCj / m
where,
m: number of events measured
In addition, the log mean EMC can be calculated using the logarithmic transformation of each
EMC. This transformation allows for normalization of the data for statistical purposes.
7
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
Mean of the Log EMCs = Y Log(EMQ) / m
Estimates of the arithmetic summary statistics of the population (mean, median, standard
deviation, and coefficient of variation) should be based on their theoretical relationships
(Appendix A) with the mean and standard deviation of the transformed data. Computing the
mean and standard deviation of log transforms of the sample EMC data and then converting
them to an arithmetic estimate often obtains a better estimate of the mean of the population
due to the more typical distributional characteristics of water quality data. This value will not
match that produced by the simple arithmetic
average of the data. Both provide an estimate of the population mean, but the approach
utilizing the log -transformed data tends to provide a better estimator, as it has been shown in
various investigations that pollutant, contaminant and constituent concentration levels have a
log -normal distribution (NURP, 1983). As the sample size increases, the two values converge.
Assumptions
This method
• Weights EMCs from all storms equally regardless of relative magnitude of storm. For
example a high concentration/high volume event has equal weight in the average EMC
as a low concentration/low volume event. The logarithmic approach tends to minimize
the difference between the EMC and mass balance calculations.
• Is most useful when loads are directly proportional to storm volume. For work conducted
on nonpoint pollution (i.e., inflows), the EMC has been shown to not vary significantly
with storm volume. This lends credence to using the average EMC value for the inflow
but does not provide sufficient evidence that outflows are well represented by average
EMC. Accuracy of this method will vary based on the BMP type.
• Minimizes the impacts of smaller/cleaner storm events on actual performance
calculations. For example, in a storm by storm efficiency approach, a low removal value
for such an event is weighted equally to a larger value.
• Allows for the use of data where portions of the inflow or outflow data are missing,
based on the assumption that the inclusion of the missing data points would not
significantly impact the calculated average EMC.
Comments
This method
Is taken directly from nonpoint pollution studies and does a good job characterizing
inflows to BMPs but fails to take into account some of the complexities of BMP design.
For example, some BMPs may not have outflow EMCs that are normally distributed
(e.g., a media filter that treats to a relatively constant level that is independent on inflow
concentrations).
Assumes that if all storms at the site had been monitored, the average inlet and outlet
EMCs would be similar to those that were monitored.
0
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
ATTACHMENT 3 - GRANT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
The DEP Bureau of Watershed Restoration administers state funds allocated to the
TMDL program for the reduction of urban nonpoint source pollutant loadings to
impaired waters. These grant funds are used to implement projects (Best Management
Practices or BMPs) to reduce urban stormwater pollutant loadings from existing
drainage systems without treatment and from lands developed before the
implementation of the state's stormwater treatment rules. Nonpoint source pollution is
the biggest cause of water pollution in Florida today, and reducing stormwater pollutant
loadings is critical to meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established for
impaired waters.
1. Project Name: Provide the name of the project. For example, Lake Greenwood
Urban Wetland Stormwater Retrofit
2. Project Funding: Provide the total project costs, the matching funds, and the
amount of TMDL grant funding requested. Provide the % for matching funds and TMDL
grant funds.
3. Lead Organization: This is the entity that is applying for the grant funds and with
which DEP will enter into a contract for the project. Also, provide the date on which the
Lead Organization's Fiscal Year ends (i.e., December 31, September 30, June 30) and
the Lead Organization's Federal Employment Identification Number (FEID)
4. Contact Person: Provide the name and contact information for the person from the
Lead Organization that will serve as the project/contract manager.
5. Cooperating Organizations: Provide the name and contact person for any entities
that are providing matching funds or in -kind services on the project.
6. Project Abstract: Provide an abstract of the project that includes the name of the
water body to which the stormwater BMP discharges, the status of the impaired water
body (i.e., BMAP adopted, TMDL adopted, verified list), the number of acres in the
drainage area to be treated, the BMPs to be implemented, and the anticipated load
reductions.
7. Project Location and Watershed Characteristics: Provide the requested information
for the drainage area that will contribute stormwater to the retrofit project.
8. TMDL Status of Water Body: Provide the requested information. Status of impaired
water body means one of the following, as applicable: TMDL Adopted, on Adopted
Verified List of Impaired Waters, on Planning List of Impaired Waters, on 1999 Consent
Decree list. Status of Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) means one of the
following, as applicable: BMAP Adopted, BMAP in development, no BMAP
9. Pollution Reduction Strategy: Summarize the actions, both structural and
nonstructural, that will be undertaken as part of the project to reduce stormwater
0
FORM #: 62-305.900
RULE #: 62-305.300(1)
FORM TITLE: TMDL WATER QUALITY GRANT APPLICATION
pollutant loadings to impaired waters. Please state if the project is specifically listed in
a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM Plan), National Estuary
Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), BMAP, or
other watershed or stormwater master plan.
10. Project Objectives: Provide the objectives of the project. For example, the
objective of this project is to reduce stormwater pollutant loads to Dirty Lake, an
impaired water body with an adopted TMDL, and to educate the public about effective
stormwater treatment.
11. Project Description: Provide a brief, but complete, description of each task to be
undertaken as part of the project. For each task, include the specific deliverables that
will result from the task, and the start date and end date for the task. Some tasks may
actually occur before the grant application is submitted such as land acquisition, project
design, permitting, etc.
12. Estimated Pollutant Load Reduction: Using the models listed and the Event Mean
Concentrations listed in Attachment 1, provide stormwater pollutant load estimates for
the existing condition, the condition after the BMP is installed, and the resulting load
reductions.
13. Project Milestones: List your tasks from Number 11 and their start and end dates.
14. Project Budget by Category: Provide your budget, for both grant funds and
matching funds, by the categories listed. You may add additional categories, as
needed.
15. Dedicated Stormwater Funding Information: If matching funds are being provided
by a dedicated stormwater funding source, such as a stormwater utility fee, MSBU,
MSTU, or infrastructure sales tax, please provide the requested information.
16. Budget by Task: Provide your budget, for both grant funds and matching funds, by
task. Tasks should correspond to those listed in Items 11 and 13.
17. Other Funding: List other funding sources that do not serve as matching funds.
18. References Cited: Please list any references cited in your project description
10
Urban Waters Small Grants
Grant Information
Federal Agency Name: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Immediate
Office
Funding Opportunity Title: Urban Waters Small Grants
Announcement Type: Request for Proposals (RFP)
Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OW-I0-12-01
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 66.440
Dates: Hard copy proposals must be received by the EPA Regional Contact (See Section IV.B.2
of this RFP) by 4:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST) January 23, 2012. Proposals
submitted electronically via http://www.&gants.aov must be received by 11:59 P.M. EST
January 23, 2012. Late proposals will not be considered for funding. Questions must be
submitted in writing via e-mail and must be received by the Agency Contact identified in Section
VII by January 16, 2012. Written responses will be posted on EPA"swebsite at:
http://www.epa.,oy/urbanwaters/funding.
FollowingEPA's evaluation ofproposals, all applicants will be notified regarding their status.
Final applications will be requested from those eligible entities whose proposal have been
successfully evaluated and preliminarily recommended for award. Those entities will be
provided with instructions and a due date for submittal of the final application package.
Note to Applicants: If you name sub awardee s/subgrantees and/or contractor(s) in your proposal
to assist you with the proposed project, pay careful attention to the information in Section II.0
CONTRACTS AND SUBAWARDS.
SUMMARY:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is soliciting proposals from eligible
applicants for projects that will contribute to improved water quality in urban areas. The goal of
the Urban Waters Small Grants is to fund research, studies, training, and demonstration projects
that will advance the restoration of urban waters by improving water quality through activities
that also support community revitalization and other local priorities. In general, projects should
promote a comprehensive understanding of local water quality issues; identify and support
activities that address these issues at the local level; engage, educate and empower communities
surrounding the urban water body; and benefit surrounding communities including those that
have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the urban water body.
The funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2: Protect
Water Quality, Sub -objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. In addition,
funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015
EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Protecting America"s Waters, Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore
Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystems. Information on the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan is
available at http://nepis.epa.()ov/Adobe/PDF/P1001IPt�.PDF and information on the FY 2011 —
2015 EPA Strategic Plan is available at http://www.epa.Gov/planandbud et/strate icplan.htMI.
The total estimated funding available for the awards under this competition is up to
approximately $3.8 million, with $1.8 million currently available and up to an estimated
additional $2 million anticipated in FY 2012. Funding is contingent upon Agency funding levels,
the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations.
EPA Regional Offices will award the cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this
announcement. Approximately three to four cooperative agreements are anticipated to be
awarded by each EPA Regional Office with funds currently available. Pending receipt of FY
2012 funds, it is anticipated that each EPA Regional Office may award up to approximately four
additional cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this announcement. Applicants
may not request more than $60,000 in federal funding — proposals requesting more than $60,000
in federal funds will not be reviewed. While there is no minimum, EPA suggests applicants
request at least approximately $40,000 in federal funds. A minimum non-federal cost share /
match of $2,500 is required (see Section III.B for information on the cost share / match
requirement). It is anticipated that funded cooperative agreements will have a two-year project
period.
L FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION
A. BACKGROUND
Many urban waters are impaired by pathogens, excess nutrients, and contaminated sediments that
result from sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows, polluted runoff from urban landscapes
and contamination from abandoned industrial facilities. Under the Urban Waters Program, EPA
is seeking to support communities in their efforts to access, improve, and benefit from their
urban waters and the surrounding land. This program also recognizes that certain communities,
including minority, low income and those with indigenous populations, are and have been
particularly burdened by polluted urban waterways and have not reaped the benefits that healthy,
accessible waters can bring.
The objective of EPA"sUrban Waters Program is to protect and restore America"s urban
waterways. It is also expected that the awards under this program will help promote addressing
environmental justice considerations by:
Addressing water quality issues in communities, such as those containing minority, low
income, or indigenous populations, that have been adversely impacted by polluted urban
waters; and
• Involving these communities and others in performance of the project including the
design, planning and performance of activities that contribute to water quality restoration.
Healthy and accessible urban waters can help grow local businesses and enhance educational,
recreational, employment and social opportunities in nearby communities. By promoting public
access to urban waterways, EPA will help communities become active participants in restoration
and protection. By linking water to other community priorities, such as economic development,
2
EPA will help to sustain that involvement. By more effectively leveraging existing programs,
EPA aims to support projects and build partnerships with a variety of federal, state, tribal, and
local partners that foster increased connection, understanding, and stewardship of local
waterways.
B. URBAN WATERS SMALL GRANTS
The goal of the Urban Waters Small Grants being competed under this opportunity is to fund
research, studies, training, and demonstration projects that will advance the restoration of urban
waters by improving water quality through activities that also support community revitalization
and local priorities. EPA"sUrban Waters Small Grants RFP intends to fund proposals for water
quality projects located in urban areas. It is anticipated that projects funded under this
announcement will promote a comprehensive understanding of local water quality issues;
identify and support activities that address these issues at the local level; engage, educate, and
empower communities surrounding the water body; and benefit surrounding communities
including those that have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the
urban water body.
In order to achieve the objectives of the program, proposals should address the following
elements:
1. Leads to the environmental restoration of an urban water body.
Water Quality Restoration
Proposals should describe how the project will contribute to environmental
restoration of an urban water body. The description should include the characteristics
of the project area that identify it as "urban", using supporting information (such as
total population relative to adjacent areas, population density, land use or density of
created structures, etc.). The proposal should also describe the urban water body,
which may include any body of water, all or an important part of which flows through
or is located in the urban project area (e.g., wetlands, rivers, lakes, bays, estuaries,
reservoirs, canals, etc.), and describe how the planned work addresses important
water quality threats or impairments.
ii. Relevance to Community Priorities
Proposals should describe how the proposed project makes water quality restoration
of the urban water body relevant to community priorities, which may include public
health, social and economic revitalization, and livability goals. Community priorities
may be demonstrated through available community information (e.g., documented
community interests, community plans, surveys, polls, studies, etc.). The description
should include how the project uses community priorities as a way to engage local
residents and sustain their engagement over the time horizon required for water
quality improvement beyond EPA Urban Waters Small Grants funding.
iii. Success Potential/Feasibility
Proposals should describe how the proposed project uses a creative or effective
approach to restore water quality within the urban area. The description should
discuss the readiness of the project (in particular, the project"s success potential or
feasibility).
2. Partnerships.
Proposals should identify appropriate and necessary partnerships to successfully conduct the
project. Effective partnerships are very important to urban waters work. Partnerships between
organizations focused on water quality, environmental justice concerns and other community
priorities can greatly benefit from one another"s experience. In their proposals, applicants
should demonstrate their ability to identify appropriate and necessary partnerships to
successfully conduct the project including how they plan to involve surrounding
communities that have been adversely impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the
urban water body (e.g., minority, low income or indigenous populations) in the design,
planning, and performance of the project.
Partnerships should include organizations that have the skills, expertise and networks related
to environmental justice, community revitalization and other local priorities. Some examples
of key partners include local residents, industry businesses, academic institutions, non-profit
organizations, communities surrounding the urban water body, and other suitable partners to
work on urban water issues. If a working partnership already exists or is under development,
the proposal should identify all parties involved, as well as provide a clear description of the
roles of each partner in the project"s components/tasks and how each partner will contribute
to the success of the project.
If a working partnership exists, partnership letters of commitment should be included in the
proposal package. Letters of commitment should describe the extent to which the partner will
engage with the applicant to help effectively perform the project. If a partnership does not yet
exist, proposals should describe how the applicant plans to engage partners and establish
working partnerships to successfully complete the project. If the applicant does not intend to
have partners, then an explanation should be provided on how it will effectively perform the
project without partners. Please do not send letters of endorsement, recommendation, or
support; they will not be considered.
3. Benefits to Community.
Proposals should address how the project will benefit communities surrounding the urban
water body that have been impacted by the water pollution issues affecting the urban water
body. This includes communities comprised of minority, low income, or indigenous
populations, as well as others that may be adversely impacted by the urban water body's
water pollution issues. For example, proposals should describe community impacts related to
the water pollution, which may include but are not limited to economic, health and
environmental conditions as well as how the proposed project will benefit the surrounding
communities.
M
As discussed in Section I.D, the statutory authority for the cooperative agreements to be funded
under this announcement is Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Examples of
projects that are eligible for funding under this announcement include, but are not limited to,
those that:
• Foster collaboration and/or coordinate a partnership among diverse stakeholders,
including industry, environmental groups, upstream and downstream interests (actors),
etc., to develop a plan or study. (*Funds cannot be used to implement such a plan).
• Develop educational programs to provide training and recognition to schools, business,
and homeowners on how to implement practices that reduce the amount of water
pollution and/or stormwater entering the water body, or promote low -impact design
(LID) and/or green infrastructure practices.
• Map trails and other walkways along water bodies to identify gaps or areas where
additional connectivity is needed (e.g. identify properties for potential acquisition or
maintenance).
• Establish a baseline monitoring program for routine water quality monitoring and support
and /or establish monitoring to identify areas of concern and possible places where
restoration efforts can be effectively targeted.
• Provide education and training related to preparing community members for anticipated
jobs in green infrastructure, water quality restoration, or other water quality improvement
projects (i.e., green jobs).
If the proposal includes a demonstration project, the applicant must describe how it meets the
requirements set forth for demonstration projects, as discussed in Section I.D.
Examples of projects that are not eligible for funding under this announcement include, but are
not limited to those that:
• Construct community access points such as overlooks, boat launches, and recreation
areas;
• Implement stormwater infrastructure improvements, including installation of low -impact
development and green infrastructure;
• Carry out community clean-ups;
• Construct habitat for birds and other wildlife along the water body;
• Construct connections between open space to provide corridors for birds and other
wildlife; and
• Restore stream banks.
Proposals will be evaluated using the criteria outlined in Section V. Selections and awards will
be made by EPA Regional Offices. Under this competition, only one proposal can be submitted
per applicant. If an applicant submits more than one proposal, EPA will contact them before the
review process begins to determine which one will be withdrawn. For the purposes of this RFP,
EPA considers governmental units to be a single applicant per the definition of Grantee in 40
CFR 31.3 and they may submit only one proposal to EPA. The Agency will not accept proposals
from more than one agency of the same governmental unit. However, applicants may list other
eligible applicants as partners on proposals even if the partner also submits a proposal to EPA.
Hard copy proposals must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office, as described in
Section IV. For all submittals (hard copy or electronic), the cover page of the Proposal Narrative
(see Section IV.C) must include the appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant
is uncertain which Region to submit their proposal, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi by email at
urbanwaters tr eDa,aov.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS AND LINKAGE TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The funding provided under this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2006 —
2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality,
Sub -objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis. In addition, funding under
this announcement supports the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal
2: Protecting America"s Waters, Objective 2.2: Protect and Restore Watershed and Aquatic
Ecosystems. Information on the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan is available at
http://nepis.epa.�ov/Adobe/PDF/PI00IIPI,,,PDF and information on the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA
Strategic Plan is available at mi.
All proposed projects should demonstrate the linkage to both EPA Strategic Plans and include
specific statements describing the environmental results of the proposed project in terms of well-
defined outputs and, to the maximum extent practicable, well-defined outcomes that will
demonstrate how the project will contribute to the overall goals listed above.
Environmental results are a way to gauge a proj ect"s performance and are described in terms of
outputs and outcomes. Environmental outputs (or deliverables) refer to an environmental
activity, effort, and/or associated work product related to an environmental goal or objective, that
will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be
quantitative or qualitative, but must be measurable during a cooperative agreement funding
period.
Examples of anticipated environmental outputs from the cooperative agreements to be awarded
under this announcement include, but are not limited to:
• Core partnership is established representing community interests with those living and
working in the community, affected by the project, up- and downstream stakeholders and
key local, state and federal departments and agencies with regulatory jurisdiction or
programmatic assistance.
0
• Number of outreach education and presentations to residents, businesses, green industry
workforce and local/state officials conducted to improve understanding of water quality
and community health and environmental issues, and to understand management
practices suitable to reduce pollution identified in the management plan.
• Maps are prepared illustrating all properties, current use and types of ownership. Maps
are prepared illustrating designated or maintained trails, common paths, sidewalks, and
railroad, pipeline and other right-of-ways for potential access.
• Number of new locations and indicators identified for monitoring, number of new
volunteer training workshops conducted, and arrangement of laboratory analysis and
preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
• Number of green job trainings to improve the knowledge and experience in water quality
improvement techniques provided to under -employed and unemployed residents. Number
of workshops, educational materials, and other assistance applied during training.
Environmental outcomes are the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out
an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or
objective, and are used as a way to gauge a proj ect"s performance and take the form of output
measures and outcome measures. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health -related, or
programmatic in nature. Outcomes must be quantitative and may not necessarily be achieved
within a cooperative agreement funding period. Outcomes may be short-term (changes in
learning, knowledge, attitude, skills), intermediate (changes in behavior, practice, or decisions),
or long-term (changes in condition of the natural resource).
Examples of anticipated outcomes from the cooperative agreements to be awarded under this
announcement include, but are not limited to:
Local and state ordinances are enacted / enforced to manage and resolve significant
threats identified in the Urban Watershed Management Plan. Environmental and
community improvements are undertaken by partners with responsibilities under the
management plan.
Interest is generated and technical support is provided to X number of homeowners,
business and community interests to design rain gardens, and other "green" practices that
provide direct pollutant removal. As a result of this outreach campaign, X number of low -
impact development educational sites are installed.
• „Green" or open space, safe community access to waterways and surroundings are
dedicated for public use; local or municipal maintenance is provided to improve
community environment and safe access to waterways.
7
Knowledge and awareness of baseline conditions are established, areas of concern are
identified, and results are transferred to help educate community decisions makers,
residents and state and federal agencies.
• Hands-on training and installation of demonstration projects provides a larger workforce
knowledgeable of rain gardens and other practices leading to a direct improvement on
water quality.
As part of the Proposal Narrative, an applicant will be required to describe how the project
results will link the outcomes to both of the Agency"s Strategic Plans. Additional information
regarding EPA"s discussion of environmental results in terms of outputs and outcomes can be
found at: httD:llwww.eDa wvloorantslaward15700.7.pdf.
D. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The statutory authority for the cooperative agreements to be funded under this announcement is
Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA, 33 USC § 1254(b)(3). CWA Section 104(b)(3) restricts the use of
these cooperative agreements to the following: conducting or promoting the coordination and
acceleration of research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Projects that are demonstrations must involve new
or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches. EPA expects that the results of the project
will be disseminated so that others can benefit from the knowledge gained in the demonstration
project. A project that is accomplished through the performance of routine, traditional, or
established practices, or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than transfer
information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project might be, is not
considered a demonstration project. For proposals that include demonstration projects, the
applicant must describe how the project meets the above requirements. Implementation projects
are not eligible for funding under this announcement.
IL AWARD INFORMATION
A. AMOUNT OF FUNDING
The total estimated funding available for the awards under this competition is up to
approximately $3.8 million, with $1.8 million currently available and up to an estimated
additional $2 million anticipated in FY 2012. Funding is contingent upon Agency funding levels,
the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations.
EPA Regional Offices will award the cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this
announcement. Approximately three to four cooperative agreements are anticipated to be
awarded by each EPA Regional Office with funds currently available. Pending receipt of FY
2012 funds, it is anticipated that each EPA Regional Office may award up to approximately four
additional cooperative agreements for projects resulting from this announcement. Applicants
may not request more than $60,000 in federal funding — proposals requesting more than $60,000
in federal funds will not be reviewed. While there is no minimum, EPA suggests applicants
request at least approximately $40,000 in federal funds. A minimum non-federal cost share /
match of $2,500 is required (see Section III.B for information on the cost share / match
requirement). It is anticipated that funded cooperative agreements will have a two-year project
period.
In appropriate circumstances, EPA reserves the right to partially fund a proposal by funding
discrete portions or phases of a proposed project. If EPA decides to partially fund a proposal, it
will do so in a manner that does not prejudice any applicants or affect the basis upon which the
proposal or portion thereof, was evaluated and selected for award, and therefore maintains the
integrity of the competition and selection process.
EPA reserves the right to make no awards under this announcement, or make fewer awards than
anticipated. In addition, EPA reserves the right to make additional awards under this
announcement, consistent with Agency policy and guidance, if additional funding becomes
available after the original selections are made. Any additional selections for awards will be
made within six months after the original selection decisions.
B. TYPE OF FUNDING
It is anticipated that cooperative agreements will be funded under this announcement. When a
cooperative agreement is awarded, EPA will have substantial involvement with the project
workplans and budget. Although EPA will negotiate precise terms and conditions relating to
substantial involvement as part of the award process, the anticipated substantial federal
involvement for a project selected may include:
1. Close monitoring of the recipient"sperformance to verify the results proposed by the
applicant;
2. Collaboration during the performance of the scope of work;
3. In accordance with the applicable regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 and 31, review of
proposed procurements;
4. Review of qualifications of key personnel (EPA does not have authority to select
employees or contractors employed by the recipient);
5. Review and comment on tasks/deliverables and reports prepared under the cooperative
agreement(s) (the final decision on the content of these reports rests with the recipient);
and
6. Upon request by the recipient and subject to the availability of personnel, EPA will provide
the recipient with access to EPA scientific expertise, sampling protocols, publicly available
data, and other forms of technical assistance.
C. CONTRACTS AND SUBAWARDS
1. Can funding be used for the applicant to make subawards, acquire contract services, or fund
partnerships?
EPA awards funds to one eligible applicant as the recipient even if other eligible applicants are
named as partners or co -applicants or members of a coalition or consortium. The recipient is
accountable to EPA for the proper expenditure of funds.
0
Funding may be used to provide subgrants or subawards of financial assistance, which includes
using subawards or subgrants to fund partnerships, provided the recipient complies with
applicable requirements for subawards or subgrants including those contained in 40 CFR Parts
30 or 31, as appropriate. Applicants must compete contracts for services and products, including
consultant contracts, and conduct cost and price analyses, to the extent required by the
procurement provisions of the regulations at 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31, as appropriate. The
regulations also contain limitations on consultant compensation. Applicants are not required to
identify subawardees/subgrantees and/or contractors (including consultants) in their proposal.
However, if they do, the fact that an applicant selected for award has named a specific
subawardee/subgrantee, contractor, or consultant in the proposal EPA selects for funding does
not relieve the applicant of its obligations to comply with subaward/subgrant and/or competitive
procurement requirements as appropriate. Please note that applicants may not award sole source
contracts to consulting, engineering or other firms assisting applicants with the proposal solely
based on the firm's role in preparing the proposal.
Successful applicants cannot use subgrants or subawards to avoid requirements in EPA grant
regulations for competitive procurement by using these instruments to acquire commercial
services or products from for -profit organizations to carry out its assistance agreement. The
nature of the transaction between the recipient and the subawardee or subgrantee must be
consistent with the standards for distinguishing between vendor transactions and subrecipient
assistance under Subpart B Section .210 of OMB Circular A-133 , and the definitions of
subaward at 40 CFR 30.2(ff) or subgrant at 40 CFR 31.3, as applicable. EPA will not be a party
to these transactions. Applicants acquiring commercial goods or services must comply with the
competitive procurement standards in 40 CFR Part 30 or 40 CFR Part 31.36 and cannot use a
subaward/subgrant as the funding mechanism.
2. How will an applicant" s proposed subawardees/subgrantees and contractors be considered
during the evaluation process described in Section V of the announcement?
Section V of the announcement describes the evaluation criteria and evaluation process that will
be used by EPA to make selections under this announcement. During this evaluation, except for
those criteria that relate to the applicant's own qualifications, past performance, and reporting
history, the review panel will consider, as appropriate and relevant, the qualifications, expertise,
and experience of:
(i) an applicant's named sub awardees/subgrantee s identified in the proposal if the
applicant demonstrates in the proposal that if it receives an award that the
subaward/subgrant will be properly awarded consistent with the applicable
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 30 or 31. For example, applicants must not use
subawards/subgrants to obtain commercial services or products from for -profit firms
or individual consultants.
(ii) an applicant's named contractor(s), including consultants, identified in the proposal if
the applicant demonstrates in its proposal that the contractor(s) was selected in
compliance with the competitive Procurement Standards in 40 CFR Part 30 or 40
CFR 31.36 as appropriate. For example, an applicant must demonstrate that it
10
selected the contractor(s) competitively or that a proper non-competitive sole -source
award consistent with the regulations will be made to the contractor(s), that efforts
were made to provide small and disadvantaged businesses with opportunities to
compete, and that some form of cost or price analysis was conducted. EPA may not
accept sole source justifications for contracts for services or products that are
otherwise readily available in the commercial marketplace.
EPA will not consider the qualifications, experience, and expertise of named subawardees /
subgrantees and/or named contractor(s) during the proposal evaluation process unless the
applicant complies with these requirements.
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
A. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
States, local governments, territories, Indian Tribes, and possessions of the U.S. (including the
District of Columbia), public and private universities and colleges, public or private nonprofit
institutions, intertribal consortia, and interstate agencies are eligible to apply. Individuals, for -
profit commercial entities and all federal agencies are not eligible to apply. Nonprofit
organizations described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in
lobbying activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act 1995 are not eligible
to apply.
The term "interstate agency" is defined in CWA Section 502 as "an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress, or any other
agency of two or more States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of
pollution as determined and approved by the Administrator."
An intertribal consortium is a partnership between two or more tribes that is authorized by the
governing bodies of those tribes to apply for and receive assistance (see 40 CFR 35.502.). The
intertribal consortium is eligible only if the consortium demonstrates that all of its members meet
the eligibility requirements and authorize the consortium to apply for and receive assistance in
accordance with 40 CFR 35.504 at the time of proposal submission. An intertribal consortium
must submit with its proposal to EPA adequate documentation of the existence of the partnership
and the authorization of the consortium by its members to apply for and receive the grant (see 40
CFR 35.504.).
Nonprofit organizations may be asked to provide documentation that they meet the definition of
a nonprofit organization in OMB Circular A-122, now at 2 CFR Part 230. The OMB Circular A-
122 is available at http://www.whitehouse.ov/omb/circulars a122 2004/. Interstate agencies
may be asked to provide a citation to the statutory authority, which establishes their status.
B. COST SHARING / MATCH REQUIREMENTS
For this RFP, EPA has determined that an applicant must provide a minimum of $2,500 as
the non-federal cost share / match.
11
The non-federal cost share / match may be provided in cash or can come from in -kind
contributions, such as use of volunteers and/or donated time, equipment, expertise, etc., and is
subject to the regulations governing matching fund requirements described in 40 CFR 30.23 or
40 CFR 31.24, as applicable. In -kind contributions often include salaries or other verifiable costs
and this value must be carefully documented. In the case of salaries, applicants may use either
minimum wage or fair market value. Cost share / match must be used for eligible and allowable
project costs. Cost share / matching funds are considered grant funds and are included in the total
award amount and should be used for the reasonable and necessary expenses of carrying out the
workplan. All grant funds are subject to federal audit. Any restrictions on the use of grant funds
(examples of restrictions are outlined in Section III.D of this announcement) also apply to the use
of cost share / match. Other federal grants may not be used as cost share / match without specific
statutory authority. In order to be considered for funding, all applicants must describe in
their proposal submission how they will contribute the appropriate cost share / match
requirement.
Indian Tribes may be exempt from this cost share / match requirement if fulfilling the cost share
/ match requirement would impose undue hardship. Tribal governments wishing to be exempt
from the minimum $2,500 cost share / match requirement must submit a one -page written
request via e-mail to the Agency contact identified in Section VII with justification within 30
calendar days from the date of issuance of this announcement. EPA will notify the potential
applicant of its decision within 10 business days of receipt of the written request. If the cost share
/ match exemption is approved, the proposal will be reviewed for threshold eligibility as
satisfying the $2,500 cost share / match.
C. THRESHOLD ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Proposals must meet the following threshold criteria in order to be considered for funding. Only
proposals that meet all of these criteria will be considered eligible and evaluated against the
ranking factors in Section V of the announcement. Applicants deemed ineligible for funding
consideration as a result of the threshold eligibility review will be notified within 15 calendar
days of the ineligibility determination.
1. An applicant must meet the eligibility requirements in Section III.A of this
announcement.
2. Proposals must substantially comply with the proposal submission instructions and
requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement or else they will be rejected.
Where a page limit is expressed in Section IV.C.3 with respect to the Proposal Narrative,
pages in excess of the page limitation will not be reviewed. Section IV.C.3 establishes a
10-page, single-spaced Proposal Narrative page limit that includes the cover page.
3. Proposals must be in compliance with CWA 104(b)(3) and include projects that conduct
or promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent,
prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Projects that are
demonstrations must involve new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches.
A project that is accomplished through the performance of routine, traditional, or
12
established practices, or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than
transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project
might be, is not considered a demonstration project. For proposals that include
demonstration projects, the applicant must describe how the project meets the above
requirements. Implementation projects are not eligible for funding under this
announcement.
4. Proposals requesting federal funds in excess of $60,000 will not be reviewed.
5. Applicants must demonstrate in their proposal how they will provide the minimum
required non-federal cost share/match of $2,500 as described in Section III.B.
6. Proposals must be received by EPA or received through Grants.gov, as specified in
Section IV of this announcement, on or before the proposal submission deadline
published in Section IV of this announcement. If submitting a hard copy proposal,
applicants are responsible for ensuring that their proposal reaches the designated person /
office specified in Section IV of the announcement by the submission deadline.
7. If the applicant chooses to submit a hard copy of the proposal, it must be submitted by
hand delivery, express delivery service, or courier service. Hard copy proposals
submitted by any type of regular U.S. Postal Service mail will not be considered.
EPA will not accept faxed or emailed submissions.
8. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be considered unless the
applicant can clearly demonstrate that it was late due to EPA mishandling or because of
technical issues attributable to grants.gov. For hard copy submissions, where Section IV
requires proposal receipt by a specific person / office by the submission deadline, receipt
by an agency mailroom is not sufficient. Applicants should confirm receipt of their
proposal with the appropriate Regional EPA contact listed in Section IV.B.2 as soon as
possible after the submission deadline; failure to do so may result in your proposal not
being reviewed.
9. Only one proposal per applicant can be submitted under this RFP. If an applicant submits
more than one proposal, EPA will contact them before the review process begins to
determine which one will be withdrawn.
D. FUNDING RESTRICTIONS
All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under the applicable Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Cost Circulars: A-87 (States and local governments), A-122
(nonprofit organizations), or A-21 (universities). Copies of these circulars can be found at
http://www.whitehouse.�ov/omb/circulars/. In accordance with EPA policy and the OMB
circulars, as appropriate, any recipient of funding must agree not to use assistance funds for
lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (i.e., lobbying members of Congress or lobbying for
other federal grants, assistance agreements, or contracts). Funds cannot be used to pay for travel
by federal agency staff. Proposed project activities must also comply with all state and federal
regulations applicable to the project area. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance.
IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
A. APPLICATION PACKAGES
13
Grant application forms, including Standard Forms (SF) 424 and SF 424A, are available at
httpalwww.epa.govloodlorantslhow to apply.htm and by mail upon request by calling the
Grants and Interagency Agreements Management Division at (202) 564-5320.
B. FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
Applicants have the option to submit their proposals in one of two ways: 1) electronically via
www.grants.gov or 2) hard copy and CD by overnight delivery, hand delivery, or courier service
to the EPA contact identified in Section IV.13.2. Proposals that are submitted via regular U.S.
Postal mail, FAX or e-mail will not be considered. All proposals must be prepared, and include
the information, as described in Section IV.C. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL SUBMISSION,
regardless of mode of submission.
As discussed in Section I.B, selections and awards will be made by EPA Regional Offices. For
hard copy submissions (electronic submittals are sent through grants.gov), the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to send the proposal to is determined by the geographic location of the project,
not the location of the applicant. For example, if the proposed project takes places in Louisiana,
the proposal should be submitted to EPA Region 6 (see Section IV.13.2). If the project location is
served by two or more EPA Regions (for example, the project is located in both Pennsylvania
(served by EPA Region 3) and New Jersey (served by EPA Region 2)), the applicant must
submit the proposal to the appropriate EPA Regional Office based on where the majority of the
work will take place. Only one proposal per applicant can be submitted. For all submittals (hard
copy or electronic), the cover page of the Proposal Narrative (see Section IV.C) must include the
appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant is uncertain which Region to submit
their proposal to, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi by email at urbanwaters weov.
1. Grants.2ov Submission
Applicants who wish to submit their materials electronically through the Federal government"s
Grants.gov web site may do so. Grants.gov allows an applicant to download an application
package template and complete the package offline based on agency instructions. After an
applicant completes the required application package, it can submit the package electronically to
Grants.gov, which transmits the package to the funding agency.
The electronic submission of your proposal must be made by an official representative of your
institution who is registered with Grants.gov and is authorized to sign applications for Federal
assistance. For more information, go to htV,/ www.grants.gov and click on "Get Registered" on
the left side of the page.
Note that the registration process may take a week or longer to complete. If your organization is
not currently registered with Grants.gov, please encourage your office to designate an
Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) and ask that individual to begin the registration
process as soon as possible.
To begin the proposal process under this grant announcement, go to http:llwww.,grants. Gov and
click on the "Apply for Grants" tab on the left side of the page. Then click on "Apply Step 1:
14
Download a Grant Application Package" to download the compatible Adobe viewer and obtain
the application package. To apply through Grants.gov you must use Adobe Reader
applications and download the compatible Adobe Reader version (Adobe Reader
applications are available to download free on the Grants.gov website). For more
information on Adobe Reader, please visit the Help Section on grants.gov at
http://www.jyrants.c,ov/help/help sR or. http://www. s. ov/about rantslprogram status.'s�.
Once you have downloaded the viewer, you may retrieve the proposal package by entering the
Funding Opportunity Number, EPA-OW-I0-12-01, or the CFDA number that applies to the
announcement (CFDA 66.440), in the appropriate field. You may also be able to access the
proposal package by clicking on the Application button at the top right of the synopsis page for
this announcement on http://www.grants.gov (to find the synopsis page, go to
http://www.grants,gov and click on the "Find Grant Opportunities" button on the left side of the
page and then go to Search Opportunities and use the Browse by Agency feature to find EPA
opportunities).
Proposal Submission Deadline
Your organization"s AOR must submit your complete proposal electronically to EPA through
Grants.gov (http://www.orants.Yov) no later than 11:59 PM EST January 23, 2012.
Please submit all of the proposal materials described below.
Proposal Materials
The following forms and documents are required to be submitted under this
announcement:
I. Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424).
II. Budget Information for Non -Construction Programs (SF-424A).
III. Proposal Narrative - prepared as described in Section IV.0 of this announcement.
The proposal package must include all of the following materials:
L Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance
Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to include the organization fax
number and e-mail address in Block 5 of the Standard Form SF 424.
Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System
(DUNS) number must be included on the SF-424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at
no cost by calling the toll -free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711.
II. Standard Form SF 424A — Budget Information:
15
Complete the form. There are no attachments. The total amount of Federal funding requested for
the project period should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of SF-424A. If indirect costs are
included, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 60). The indirect cost rate (i.e., a
percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be
indicated on line 22.
III. Proposal Narrative
Prepare the Proposal Narrative in accordance with the instructions in Section IV.C.3 of this
announcement. The document should be readable in PDF or MS Word and consolidated into a
single file.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
Documents I through III listed under Proposal Materials above should appear in the
"Mandatory Documents" box on the Grants.gov Grant Application Package page.
For documents I and II, click on the appropriate form and then click "Open Form" below the
box. The fields that must be completed will be highlighted in yellow. Optional fields and
completed fields will be displayed in white. If you enter an invalid response or incomplete
information in a field, you will receive an error message. When you have finished filling out
each form, click "Save." When you return to the electronic Grant Application Package page,
click on the form you just completed, and then click on the box that says, "Move Form to
Submission List." This action will move the document over to the box that says, "Mandatory
Completed Documents for Submission."
For document III, Proposal Narrative, you will need to attach electronic files. Prepare your
proposal narrative as described in Section IV.C.3 of the announcement and save the document to
your computer as an MS Word or PDF file. When you are ready to attach it to the application
package, click on "Project Narrative Attachment Form," and open the form. Click "Add
Mandatory Project Narrative File," and then attach your proposal narrative (previously saved to
your computer) using the browse window that appears. You may then click "View Mandatory
Project Narrative File" to view it. Enter a brief descriptive title of your project in the space
beside "Mandatory Project Narrative File Filename;" the filename should be no more than 40
characters long. If there other attachments that you would like to submit to accompany your
proposal narrative, you may click "Add Optional Project Narrative File" or use the "Other
Attachments" form and proceed as before. When you have finished attaching the necessary
documents, click "Close Form." When you return to the "Grant Application Package" page,
select the "Project Narrative Attachment Form" and click "Move Form to Submission List" The
form should now appear in the box that says, "Mandatory Completed Documents for
Submission."
Once you have finished filling out all of the forms/attachments and they appear in one of the
"Completed Documents for Submission" boxes, click the "Save" button that appears at the top of
the Web page. It is suggested that you save the document a second time, using a different name,
since this will make it easier to submit an amended package later if necessary. Please use the
16
following format when saving your file: "Applicant Name — FY12 — Urban Waters Small Grants
— 1 st Submission" or "Applicant Name — FY 12 Urban Waters Small Grants — Back-up
Submission."
Once your proposal package has been completed and saved, send it to your AOR for submission
to U.S. EPA through Grants.gov. Please advise your AOR to close all other software programs
before attempting to submit the proposal package through Grants.gov.
In the "Application Filing Name" box, your AOR should enter your organization"s name
(abbreviate where possible), the fiscal year (e.g., FY12), and the grant category (e.g., Urban
Waters Small Grants). The filing name should not exceed 40 characters. From the "Grant
Application Package" page, your AOR may submit the application package by clicking the
"Submit" button that appears at the top of the page. The AOR will then be asked to verify the
agency and funding opportunity number for which the application package is being submitted. If
problems are encountered during the submission process, the AOR should reboot his/her
computer before trying to submit the proposal package again. [It may be necessary to turn off the
computer (not just restart it) before attempting to submit the package again.] If the AOR
continues to experience submission problems, he/she may contact Grants.gov for assistance by
phone at 1-800-518-4726, or e-mail at http://www.(,)rants.Lyov/help/help.jsp, or contact Ji-Sun Yi
at 1-202-566-0730, or e-mail at urbanwatersnepa.gov.
Proposal packages submitted thru Grants.gov will be time/date stamped electronically.
If you have not received a confirmation of receipt from EPA (not from Grants.gov) within 30
days of the proposal deadline, please contact Ji-Sun Yi as indicated above. Failure to do so may
result in your proposal not being reviewed.
2. Hard Copy and Compact Disc (CD) Submission
Two hard copies of all required documents listed in Section IV.C, CONTENT OF
APPLICATION SUBMISSION, and an electronic version on a CD, are required to be sent by
express delivery service, courier service, or hand delivered to the appropriate EPA Regional
contact mailing address listed below. States / territories served by each Region are provided in
parentheses. These Regional contacts are listed for the sole purpose of where applicants should
send their hard copies. Please do not contact Regions with questions regarding this
announcement. To help ensure that responses are consistent and made available to all potential
applicants, all questions must be submitted in writing via email to urbanwatersepa.g1, as
specified in Section VII.
As noted above, the proposal must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office that
serves the project location. If the project location is served by two or more EPA Regions (for
example, the project is located in both Pennsylvania (served by EPA Region 3) and New Jersey
(served by EPA Region 2), the applicant must submit the proposal to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office based on where the majority of the work will take place. Only one proposal per
applicant can be submitted. The cover page of the Proposal Narrative (see Section IV.C) must
include the appropriate Regional Office for the proposal. If an applicant is uncertain which
17
Region to submit their proposal, they should contact Ji-Sun Yi, by e-mail at
urbanwatersepa. Gov.
Please mark all submissions: ATTN: FY12 URBAN WATERS SMALL GRANTS RFP.
The electronic version copied on the CD may be in PDF or MS Word format. Annotated resumes
(preferably no more than two pages each) may need to be scanned so that they can be submitted
electronically as part of the CD. Proposal submissions sent by hard copy with CD must be
received by the appropriate Regional Office identified below by 4:00 P.M. EST January 23,
2012.
Hard copy proposal submission contacts:
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
Caitlyn Whittle
U.S. EPA Region 1
5 Post Office Square
Suite 100 (OEP06-1)
Boston, MA 02109-3912
(617) 918.1748
whittle.caitl n epa,Lyov
Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, Virgin Islands)
Cyndy Kopitsky
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637.3832
kopitska.cyndy ( epa.gov
Region 3 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Catherine King
U.S. EPA Region 3 (3WP10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 814.2657
kin �.catherineepa.gov
Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Franklin Baker
U.S. EPA Region 4 (9T25)
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562.9757
baker.frank a epa. ov
Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
IN
Peg Donnelly
U.S. EPA Region 5 (WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886.6109
donnelly.eg,�ygepa.g€ov
Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Adele Cardenas
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665.7210
cardenas.adele (,epa.aov
Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE)
Jennifer Ousley
U.S. EPA Region 7 (WWPD/WPIB)
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551.7498
ousley.'ennifer epa.,ov
Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
Stacey Eriksen
U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EPR-EP)
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
(303) 312.6692
eriksen.staceynepa. ov
Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands)
Jared Vollmer
U.S. EPA Region 9 (WTR-3)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972.3447
vollmer.1 aced ( epa. gov
Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
Mary Lou Soscia
U.S. EPA Region 10
Oregon Operations Office (000)
805 S.W. Broadway, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 326.5873
19
soscia.marylouepa.�ov
C. CONTENT OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION
Applicants must read the following section very closely. A complete proposal package must
include the following three documents described below:
1. Signed Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance.
Complete the form. There are no attachments. Please be sure to include organization fax number
and e-mail address in Block 5 of the SF 424.
Please note that the organizational Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Number System
(DUNS) number must be included on the SF 424. Organizations may obtain a DUNS number at
no cost by calling the toll -free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or by visiting the
web site at www.dnb.com.
2. SF 424A, Budget Information for Non -Construction Programs.
Complete the form. There are no attachments. The total amount of federal funding requested for
the project should be shown on line 5(e) and on line 6(k) of the SF-424A. If indirect costs are
included, the amount of indirect costs should be entered on line 60). The indirect cost rate (a
percentage), the base (e.g., personnel costs and fringe benefits), and the amount should also be
indicated on line 22. If indirect costs are requested, a copy of the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate
Agreement must be submitted as part of the application package. In Section B, Budget
Categories column (1) should be filled out for federal funds, column (2) should be filled out for
non-federal cost share/match, if applicable.
3. Proposal Narrative
NOTE: The Proposal Narrative (including cover page) must be limited to no more than
10 single-spaced, typewritten 8.5x11-inch pages (a page is one side of paper). Pages
should be consecutively numbered for ease of reading. It is recommended that
applicants use a standard 12-point type with 1-inch margins. While these guidelines
establish the minimum type size recommended, applicants are advised that readability
is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate
font for use in the proposal. Additional pages beyond the 10-page single-spaced limit
will not be considered. Supporting materials (such as annotated resumes, letters of
commitment, documentation of community priorities, grant forms, etc.) do not have to be
within the page limit. Documentation pertaining to Quality Assurance/Quality Control is also
not covered by the page limit.
The Proposal Narrative, including items 1-2 below, must be typewritten and must include the
information described below. If a particular item is not applicable, clearly state this.
1. Cover Page including:
i. Name of Applicant;
ii. Regional Office for the Proposal;
20
iii. Urban Project Area and Name of Urban Water Body;
iv. Project Title (the project title should reflect the main project
outcome/objective and should be 15 words or less);
v. Key personnel and contact information (i.e., e-mail address and phone
number);
vi. Total project cost (specify the amount of federal funds requested, the
non-federal cost share / match, and the total project cost); and
vii. Abstract (the abstract should begin with one or two sentences
describing the main objective of the proposal. It should also include a
listing of the main tasks to be accomplished, and a description of the
anticipated outputs and outcomes. The entire abstract should be 250
words or less).
2. Project description containing:
a) Technical Approach — The technical approach should include a
description of how the project addresses the following elements as
discussed in Section I.B of this announcement.
i. Water Quality Restoration — Refer to Section I.B.
ii. Relevance to Community Priorities — Refer to Section I.B.
iii. Success Potential/Feasibility — Refer to Section I.B.
b) Partnerships — Refer to Section I.B.
c) Benefits to Community — Refer to Section I.B.
d) Environmental Results and Measuring Progress -
i. Stated Objective/Link to EPA Strategic Plan - List the
objective of the project and describe the linkage to the EPA
Strategic Plans (see Section I.0 of this announcement). The
Urban Waters Small Grants support the following goals of
the FY 2006 — 2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Goal 2: Clean and
Safe Water, Objective 2.2: Protect Water Quality, Sub -
objective 2.2.1: Improve Water Quality on a Watershed
Basis. In addition, the Urban Waters Small Grants support
the following goals of the FY 2011 — 2015 EPA Strategic
Plan: Goal 2: Protecting America"s Waters, Objective 2.2:
Protect and Restore Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystems.
21
ii. Results of Activities (Outputs) - List the products/results
which are expected to be achieved from accomplishment of
the project activities and an approach for tracking your
progress toward achieving the expected project output(s)
(examples of outputs can be found in Section I.0 of this
announcement).
iii. Anticipated Environmental Improvement (Outcomes) - List
the anticipated environmental improvements to be
accomplished as a result of the project activities. These
improvements are changes or benefits to the environment
which are a result from the accomplishment of project
outputs. Describe an approach for tracking your progress
toward achieving the expected project outcome(s) (examples
of outcomes can be found in Section I.0 of this
announcement).
e) Milestone Schedule —Provide a projected milestone schedule that
covers each year of the total grant period request and provides a
breakout of the project activities into phases with associated tasks
and a timeframe for completion of tasks. The project start date will
follow award acceptance by the successful applicants.
f) Transfer of Results — Provide a description of how the applicant
will transfer the results of the project to state, tribal, and local
governmental agencies, other community and watershed
organizations, public and private organizations, and/or other
interested stakeholders. For example, the applicant could create
opportunities for sharing best practices and lessons learned in the
form of meetings, web casts, or other mechanisms.
g) Detailed Budget Narrative — Provide a detailed budget and
estimated funding amounts for each project component/task.
Identify the requested federal dollars, demonstrate how the non-
federal cost share / match will be met and provide a total project
cost. This section provides an opportunity for narrative description
of the budget or aspects of the budget found in the SF 424A (i.e.,
personnel, travel, contractual, other). All subgrant funding should
be located under the "other" category. Helpful tips on writing a
budget may be found at http://www.epa.(-Tov/o(-�,d/recipient/tips.htm.
i. Total costs must include separate breakdowns for federal
costs and non-federal cost share / matching components (a
minimum $2,500 non-federal cost share / match is required).
Explain if and how partners will contribute to the required
cost share / match. Attach letters of commitment from
intended cost share / match partners, to your proposal. Letters
22
of commitment are not counted in the page limit and should
be submitted on applicable letterhead. Describe cost-
effectiveness, reasonableness of costs, and value of in -kind
contributions. If applicable, include any travel for applicant
staff to attend any necessary meetings throughout the
proposed project period, including having one representative
from the recipient organization attend the Urban Waters
Small Grants National Training Workshop (see Section VIX
of this announcement for additional information). Describe
itemized costs in sufficient detail for EPA to determine the
reasonableness and allowability of costs for each project
component/task.
ii. When formulating budgets for proposals, the applicant must
not include management fees or similar charges in excess of
the direct costs and indirect costs at the rate approved by the
applicant"s cognizant audit agency, or at the rate provided for
by the terms of the agreement negotiated with EPA. The term
"management fees or similar charges" refers to expenses
added to the direct costs in order to accumulate and reserve
funds for ongoing business expenses, unforeseen liabilities,
or for other similar costs that are not allowable under EPA
assistance agreements. Management fees or similar charges
may not be used to improve or expand the project funded
under this agreement, except to the extent authorized as a
direct cost of carrying out the scope of work.
h) Programmatic Capability/Specialized Experience
i. Organizational Experience — Provide a brief description of
your organizational experience related to the proposed
project, and your infrastructure as it relates to your ability to
successfully implement the proposed project.
ii. Staff Expertise/Qualifications — Provide a list of key staff and
briefly describe their expertise/qualifications and knowledge,
and describe your resources or the ability to obtain them to
successfully achieve the goals of the project. Include an
estimate of the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers
(based on 2080 hours per year/FTE). List proposed partner
entities, and describe their roles, and whether they will
participate as subgrantees. Annotated resumes of applicant"s
key staff (no more than two pages each) are also encouraged
and are not included in the page limit.
i) Past Performance — Briefly describe federally and/or non -federally
funded assistance agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant
23
or cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in size, scope,
and relevance to the proposed project that your organization
performed within the last five years (no more than three such
agreements and preferably EPA agreements) and:
i. Describe whether, and how, you were able to successfully
complete and manage those agreements.
ii. Describe your history of meeting the reporting requirements
under those agreements including submitting acceptable final
technical reports.
iii. Describe how you documented and/or reported on whether
you were making progress towards achieving the expected
results (i.e., outputs and outcomes) under those agreements.
If you were not making progress, please indicate whether,
and how, you documented why not.
Note: In evaluating the applicant"s past performance, the Agency
will consider the information supplied by the applicant in its
proposal, and may also consider relevant information from other
sources including Agency files (e.g., Grantee Compliance
Database) and prior/current grantors (e.g., to verify and/or
supplement the information provided the by applicant). If you do
not have any relevant or available past performance information,
please indicate this in the proposal and you will receive a neutral
score for these factors under Section V. Failure to provide any past
performance information, or to include a statement in the proposal
that you do not have any relevant or available past performance or
reporting information, may result in a zero score for these factors
(see also Section V).
j) Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) (not included in the
page limit) — If you plan to collect or use environmental data or
information, explain how you will comply with the Quality
Assurance/Quality Control requirements (see Section VIII.A
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) of
this announcement for additional information).
NOTE: The applicant should also provide in its Proposal Narrative any additional
information, to the extent not already identified above, that addresses the selection criteria
found in Section V.
D. SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES
Proposals submitted by hard copy with CD must be received by the appropriate EPA Regional
Office contact identified in Section IV.13.2 by 4:00 P.M. EST January 23, 2012. Proposals
24
submitted electronically via ht1pL//www,1Yrantscoy must be received by 11:59 P.M. EST
January 23, 2012. Late proposals will not be considered for funding.
E. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
EPA recommends that you do not include confidential business information ("CBI") in your
proposal. However, if CBI is included, it will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203.
Applicants must clearly indicate which portion(s) of their proposal they are claiming as CBI.
EPA will evaluate such claims in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality is
made, EPA is not required to make the inquiry to the applicant otherwise required by 40 CFR
2.204(c)(2) prior to disclosure. The Agency protects competitive proposals from disclosure under
applicable provisions of the Freedom of Information Act prior to the completion of the
competitive selection process.
V. Application Review Information
A. SELECTION CRITERIA
All eligible proposals, based on the Section III threshold eligibility review, will be evaluated
based on the evaluation criteria and weights below (100-point scale). Points will be awarded
based on how well and thoroughly each criterion and/or sub -criterion is addressed in the proposal
package.
1) Technical Approach (30 Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
points) the extent and quality to which the proposal demonstrates
how the project addresses the following elements as
described in Section I.B:
a) Water Quality Restoration — How well the proposal
identifies the project area as "urban" and how well the
proposed project will contribute to future environmental
restoration of the urban water body. Restoration efforts
include addressing important water quality threats or
impairments. (15 points)
b) Relevance to Community Priorities — How well the
proposed project makes water quality restoration of the
urban water body relevant to community priorities and
strives to engage local residents in a sustainable way. (5
points)
c) Success Potential/Project Feasibility —How well the
proposed project demonstrates a creative or effective
approach to restoring water quality within the urban area
and is prepared to begin work. (10 points)
25
2) Partnerships (8 points)
Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
their ability to demonstrate appropriate and necessary
partnerships to successfully conduct the project (as
described in Section LB) including whether they have
provided a clear description of the roles of specific partners
in the proj ect's components/tasks, and how these
partnerships will contribute to the success of the proposed
projects, and the extent to which communities surrounding
the urban water body (including but not limited to minority,
low income, or indigenous population communities) are
participating in the project. 8points)
3) Benefits to Community
Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent to which
(7 points)
they demonstrate how they will benefit communities
surrounding the urban water body (as described in Section
LB) that have been impacted by the water pollution issues
affecting the urban water body. This includes communities
comprised of minority, low income, or indigenous
populations, as well as others that may be adversely
impacted by the urban water body"swater pollution issues.
7points)
4) Milestone
Proposals will be evaluated based on the extent and quality
Schedule/Detailed
to which the proposal demonstrates the following:
Budget/Transfer of
Results (15 points)
a) Clearly articulated milestone schedule for project tasks.
(5 points)
b) Reasonableness of the budget and estimated funding
amounts for each project task. Applicants will be
evaluated based on: the adequacy of the information
provided in the detailed budget; whether the proposed
costs are reasonable and allowable; and how well the
applicant demonstrated cost-effectiveness and value of
the project. Total project costs must include both federal
and required cost share / match (non-federal)
components. (5 points)
c) How well the applicant will transfer the results of the
proposed project to state, tribal, and local governmental
agencies, other community and watershed organizations,
and/or other interested stakeholders. 5points)
26
5) Environmental Results
(20 points)
Proposals will be evaluated based on the following elements:
a) The extent and quality to which the proposal
demonstrates potential environmental results, anticipated
outputs and outcomes, and how the outcomes are linked
to EPA's Strategic Plans (see Section I of
announcement). (10 points)
b) The extent and quality to which the proposal
demonstrates a sound plan for tracking progress toward
achieving the expected outputs and outcomes (examples
of outputs and outcomes are provided in Section I.0 of
the announcement). 10points)
6) Programmatic
Under this criterion proposals will be evaluated based on the
Capability/Specialized
applicant"s ability to successfully complete and manage the
Experience (10 points)
proposed project taking into account the applicant"s:
a) Organizational experience related to the proposed
project, and their infrastructure as it relates to their
ability to successfully implement the proposed project. (5
points)
b) Staff experience/qualifications, staff knowledge, and
resources, or the ability to obtain them, to successfully
implement the proposed project. 5points)
7) Past Performance (10
Under this criterion, applicants will be evaluated based on
points)
their ability to successfully complete and manage the
proposed project taking into account their:
a) Past performance in successfully completing and
managing federally and/or non -federally funded
assistance agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant
or cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in
size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
performed within the last five years (no more than three,
and preferably EPA agreements). (4 points)
b) History of meeting reporting requirements under
federally and/or non -federally funded assistance
agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant or
cooperative agreement and not a contract) similar in
size, scope, and relevance to the proposed project
performed within the last five years (no more than three,
and preferably EPA agreements) and submitting
acceptable final technical reports under these
agreements. 3points)
27
c) Extent and quality to which they documented and/or
reported on their progress towards achieving the
expected results (e.g. outcomes and outputs) under
federally and/or non -federally funded assistance
agreements (an assistance agreement is a grant or
cooperative agreement and not a contract) performed in
the last 5 years (no more than three, and preferably EPA
agreements), and if such progress was not being made,
whether the applicant adequately documented why not.
(3 points)
Note: In evaluating applicants under this criterion, the
Agency will consider the information supplied by the
applicant in its proposal, and may also consider relevant
information from other sources including Agency files (e.g.
Grantee Compliance Database) and prior/current grantors
(e.g., to verify and/or supplement the information provided
by the applicant). Applicants who have no relevant or
available past performance information will receive a neutral
score for these factors (i.e., 2 points for subcriterion a), 1.5
points for subcriterion b), and 1.5 points for subcriterion c)).
Failure to provide any past performance information, or to
include a statement in your proposal that you do not have
any relevant or available past performance information, may
result in a zero score for the factors.
B. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
Each Regional Office will review proposal submissions for proposed projects located in its
associated geographic region. A proposal where the project location is served by two or more
Regional Offices will be reviewed by the Regional Office to which the proposal was submitted
to as described in Section IV.B.
All proposals received by EPA in hard copy or via grants.gov by the submission deadline will
first be screened by EPA Regional staff against the threshold criteria in Section III of the
announcement. Proposals that do not pass the threshold review will not be evaluated further or
considered for funding.
All eligible proposals will then be evaluated by a Regional review panel, which will be
composed of EPA staff, and which may also include representatives from other federal agencies
that are part of the Urban Waters Federal Partnership. Evaluations will be based on the 100-point
scale described in Section V.A above. Proposals will be ranked based on the reviewers" scores,
and the scores and rankings will be provided to the EPA Regional Selection Official(s) for final
funding decisions. In making the final funding decisions, the Regional Selection Officials may
also consider geographic diversity, project diversity, and funding availability.
VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. AWARD NOTICES
Following EPA"s evaluation of proposals, all applicants will be notified regarding their status.
Final applications will be requested from those eligible entities whose proposal has been
successfully evaluated and preliminary recommended for award. Those entities will be provided
with instructions and a due date for submittal of the final application package.
EPA reserves the right to negotiate and/or adjust the final grant amount and workplan prior to
award, as appropriate and consistent with Agency policy including the Policy for Competition of
Assistance Agreements, EPA Order 5700.5A1. An approvable final workplan narrative is
required to include:
1. Workplan components to be funded under the cooperative agreement;
2. Estimated work years and the estimated funding amounts for each workplan
component;
3. Workplan commitments for each workplan component and a timeframe for their
accomplishment;
4. Performance evaluation process and reporting schedule in accordance with
§35.115 of 40 CFR; and
5. Roles and responsibilities of the recipient and EPA (for cooperative agreements
only) in carrying out the workplan commitments.
In addition, successful applicants will be required to certify that they have not been Debarred or
Suspended from participation in federal assistance awards in accordance with 40 CFR Part 32.
Any additional information about this RFP will be posted on EPA"s Urban Waters website at
http//www.epa.goy/urbanwaters/funding. Deadline extensions or other modifications will be
posted on this website and www.s.ov.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS
The general award and administration process for this RFP is governed by regulations at 40 CFR
Part 30 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations), 40 CFR Part 31 (States,
Tribes, interstate agencies, intertribal consortia and local governments), and 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart A ("Environmental Program Grants for State, Interstate, and Local Government
Agencies") and Subpart B ("Environmental Program Grants for Tribes"). These regulations can
be found at http:llwww.epa.gov epacfr401chapt-1.info/chi-toc.htm. A description of the Agency"s
substantial involvement in the cooperative agreements will be included in the final assistance
agreement.
C. NON-PROFIT ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY CLAUSE
29
Non-profit applicants that are recommended for funding under this announcement are subject to
pre -award administrative capability reviews consistent with Section 8b, 8c and 9d of EPA Order
5700.8 - Policy on Assessing Capabilities of Non -Profit Applicants for Managing Assistance
Awards . In addition, non-profit applicants
that qualify for funding may, depending on the size of the award, be required to fill out and
submit to the Grants Management Office the Administrative Capabilities Form with supporting
documents contained in Appendix A of EPA Order 5700.8.
D. SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION REPORTING
Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply
with the sub -award and executive total compensation reporting requirements established under
OMB guidance at 2 CFR Part 170, unless they qualify for an exception from the requirements,
should they be selected for funding.
E. CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (CCR) AND DATA UNIVERSAL
NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) REQUIREMENTS
Unless exempt from these requirements under OMB guidance at 2 CfR Part 25 (e.g.,
individuals), applicants must:
1. Be registered in the CCR prior to submitting an application or proposal under this
announcement. CCR information can be found at https://www.bpn.Lwv/ccr/;
2. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at all times during
which it has an active Federal award or an application or proposal under
consideration by an agency, and
3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it submits to the agency.
Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll -free
DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B website at:
http://www. dnb. corn.
If an applicant fails to comply with these requirements, it will, should it be selected for award,
affect their ability to receive the award.
F. UNLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS
An applicant that receives an award under this announcement is expected to manage assistance
agreement funds efficiently and effectively and make sufficient progress towards completing the
project activities described in the work -plan in a timely manner. The assistance agreement will
include terms/conditions implementing this requirement.
G. INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
This program may be eligible for coverage under E.O. 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs." An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single
point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be
30
followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review. Further
information regarding this can be found at hqp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.
H. DISPUTE PROCEDURES
Assistance agreement competition -related disputes will be resolved in accordance with the
dispute resolution procedures published in 70 FR (Federal Register) 3629, 3630 (January 26,
2005) which can be found at:
http://www.epa.ovlod/competition�resolution.htm. Copies may also be requested by contacting
the Agency contact in Section VII.
I. COPYRIGHTS
In accordance with 40 CFR 30.36 for institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-
profit organizations, or 40 CFR 31.34 for other recipients, EPA reserves a royalty -free,
nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize
others to use, for Federal Government purposes copyrighted works developed under a grant,
subgrant or contract under a grant or subgrant. Examples of Federal purpose include but are not
limited to: (1) Use by EPA and other Federal employees for official Government purposes; (2)
Use by Federal contractors performing specific tasks for the Government; (3) Publication in EPA
documents provided the document does not disclose trade secrets (e.g. software codes) and the
work is properly attributed to the recipient through citation or otherwise; (4) Reproduction of
documents for inclusion in Federal depositories; (5) Use by State, tribal and local governments
that carry out delegated Federal environmental programs as "co -regulators" or act as official
partners with EPA to carry out a national environmental program within their jurisdiction; (6)
Limited use by other grantees to carry out Federal grants provided the use is consistent with the
terms of EPA"s authorization to the grantee to use the copyrighted material.
J. REPORTING
In general, recipients are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations and activities
supported by the assistance funding, to assure compliance with applicable federal requirements,
and for ensuring that established milestones and performance goals are being achieved.
Performance reports and financial reports must be submitted semi-annually and are due 30 days
after the reporting period. The final report is due 90 days after the assistance agreement has
expired. Recipients will be required to report direct and indirect environmental results from the
work accomplished through the award. In negotiating assistance agreements, EPA will work
closely with the recipient to incorporate appropriate performance measures and reporting
requirements in the workplan consistent with 40 CFR 30.51, 31.40, and 40 CFR Part 45. In
addition, it is anticipated that by the end of the assistance agreement performance period,
grantees will provide a report to describe the project as a success story that helps other
communities across the country learn from their experience.
K. NATIONAL TRAINING WORKSHOP
31
Urban Waters Small Grants recipients will be required to attend an EPA -sponsored Urban
Waters Small Grants National Training Workshop. It is anticipated that the workshop will take
place over a period of up to 2 days during the first year of the cooperative agreement
performance period. One representative from the recipient organization should plan to attend.
The purpose of this training is to help the recipient with strategic planning and cooperative
agreement management, as well as afford grantees numerous opportunities to network with other
Urban Waters community representatives. The workshop location has not yet been determined.
The recipient will be allowed to use cooperative agreement funds to pay for one person"s travel
and lodging to attend the National Training Workshop. If the recipient wishes to use cooperative
agreement funds for travel expenses to the National Training Workshop, these costs must be
included in the submitted proposed budget.
VIL AGENCY CONTACTS
Note to Applicants: In accordance with EPA's Assistance Agreement Competition Policy (EPA
Order 5700.5A1), EPA staff will not meet with individual applicants to discuss draft proposals,
provide informal comments on draft proposals, or provide advice to applicants on how to
respond to ranking criteria. Applicants are responsible for the contents of their proposals.
However, consistent with the provisions in the announcement, EPA will respond to questions
from individual applicants regarding threshold eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to
the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification about the announcement. Questions
must be submitted in writing via e-mail and must be received by the Agency Contact identified
below by January 16, 2012 and written responses will be posted on EPA"swebsite at
http://www. epa.ovlurbanwaters/funding.
Agency Contact
Ji-Sun Yi
Phone Number: (202) 566-0730
E-mail: urbanwaters{yepa.Lyov
In addition, EPA will host two national Information Sessions regarding this announcement via
webinar, based on the schedule below. EPA will attempt to answer any appropriate questions in
these public forums. Registration information for both Information Sessions can be found at
http://www. epa. Gov/urbanwaters/funding.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (EST)
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. (EST)
Questions and answers from these Information Sessions will also be posted at
http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters/funding.
VIIL OTHER INFORMATION
A. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
32
Quality Assurance/Quality Control requirements apply to these grants (see 40 CFR 30.54 and 40
CFR 31.45). QA/QC requirements apply to the collection of environmental data. Environmental
data are any measurements or information that describe environmental processes, location, or
conditions; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental
technology. Environmental data include information collected directly from measurements,
produced from models, and compiled from other sources such as databases or literature.
Successful applicants should allow sufficient time and resources for this process. EPA can assist
successful applicants in determining whether QA/QC is required for the proposed project. If
QA/QC is required for the project, the successful applicant may work with the EPA QA/QC staff
to determine the appropriate QA/QC practices for the project. See Section VII., AGENCY
CONTACTS for Agency Contact information for referral to an EPA QA/QC staff.
The successful applicant must ensure all water quality data generated in accordance with an EPA
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, either directly or by subaward, is transmitted into the
Agency"s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Data Warehouse annually or by project completion
using either WQX or WQXweb. Water quality data that are appropriate for STORET include
physical, chemical, and biological sample results for water, sediment and fish tissue. The data
include toxicity data, microbiological data, and the metrics and indices generated from biological
and habitat data. The Water Quality Exchange (WQX) is the water data schema associated with
the EPA, State and Tribal Exchange Network. Using the WQX schema partners map their
database structure to the WQX/STORET structure. WQXweb is a web -based tool to convert data
into the STORET format for smaller data generators that are not direct partners on the Exchange
Network. More information about WQX, WQXweb, and the STORET Warehouse, including
tutorials, can be found at http://www.epa.goy/storet/wqx/
B. DATA SHARING
All recipients of these assistance agreements may be required to share any data generated
through this funding agreement as a defined deliverable in the final workplan.
C. DATA ACCESS AND INFORMATION RELEASE
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide
public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some
circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part
with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an
action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. If
such data are requested by the public, the EPA must ask for it, and the grantee must submit it, in
accordance with A-110 and EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 30.36.
D. EXCHANGE NETWORK
EPA, states, territories, and tribes are working together to develop the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network, a secure, Internet- and standards -based way to support
electronic data reporting, sharing, and integration of both regulatory and non -regulatory
environmental data. States, tribes and territories exchanging data with each other or with EPA,
33
should make the Exchange Network and the Agency's connection to it, the Central Data
Exchange (CDX), the standard way they exchange data and should phase out any legacy
methods they have been using. More information on the Exchange Network is available at
www. exchang;enetwork.net.
E. URBAN WATERS FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
The Urban Waters Program supports the goals and principles of the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (www.urban aters.gov) which is a partnership of eleven federal agencies working to
reconnect urban communities with their waterways by improving coordination among federal
agencies and collaborating with community -led revitalization efforts to improve the nation"s
water systems and promote their economic, environmental and social benefits. The Urban Waters
Federal Partnership closely aligns with and advances the work of the White House"s place -based
efforts, including the Partnership for Sustainable Communities
(http:llwww.sustainablecommunities. ovlaboutUs.html), to revitalize communities, create jobs
and improve the quality of life in cities and towns across the nation. The Urban Waters Federal
Partnership also advances the work of President Obama"s America"s Great Outdoors Initiative.
EPA"s approach to protect and restore America"s urban waters is outlined in the Urban Waters
Strategic Framework, available at http:llwww.epa.(�,ovlurbanwaters/Strate(icFramework.pdf. This
Strategic Framework strives to meet the following five Intended Outcomes: Improved
connection to Urban Waters, understanding of urban waters and their potential, sense of public
ownership of urban waters, protection and restoration of urban waters, and community
revitalization.
F. UNFUNDED PROPOSALS
Subject to the availability of funds, funding authorities, and other considerations, the U.S. Forest
Service (an Urban Waters Federal Partnership agency) may consider for funding proposals not
selected for funding by EPA under this RFP.
34